2026:CGHC:15706-DB Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA TIWARI AFR TIWARI Date:

2026.04.08

10:14:47 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 272 of 2026

1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 1 In WP)

2 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Bishrampur Area, District Surguja Chhattisgarh Now District Surajpur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 3 In WP)

... Appellants versus

1 - Mahendra Kumar Sahu S/o Motiram Sahu Aged About 40 Years Occupation Advocate, R/o Sonhat, P.O. Sonhat, District Koriya Chhattisgarh (Petitioner In WP)

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, The State Rehabilitation Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2 In WP)

3 - The Collector District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Now District Surajpur Chhattisgarh) (Respondent No. 4 In WP)

... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellants : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pankaj Singh as well as Mr.

Harash Dave, Advocates For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sahu, in person For State/Respondents: Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Deputy No.2 & 3 Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

07.04 .2026

1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pankaj Singh and Mr. Harsh Dave, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sahu, respondent No.1 in person and Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents No.2 and 3, on I.A. No.01, which is an application for condonation of delay of

12 days in preferring the writ appeal.

2. On due consideration the grounds mentioned in the application (I.A. No.01), the same is allowed. Delay of 12 days in preferring the writ appeal is hereby condoned.

3. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, we proceed to hear the matter finally.

4. By way of the present writ appeal, the appellants have prayed to set aside the order dated 06.11.2025 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.1625/2012 and consequently dismiss the writ petition filed by respondent No.1/writ petitioner.

5. The brief facts projected before the learned Single Judge were that the writ petitioner had purchased Survey Nos. 341/381, 186/388(x), 182/25, 186/80 and 186/103 kha, admeasuring total area of 1.21 acres, situated at Village Govindpur, through a registered sale deed dated 05.01.1993. The surface rights over the said land were subsequently acquired by the SECL authorities, and an award came to be passed on 21.05.2002, pursuant to which compensation amounting to Rs. 31,291/- was paid to the writ petitioner. It was the case of the writ petitioner that he had applied for grant of employment in terms of the rehabilitation policy issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh dated 25.09.1991. However, the said claim was rejected by the competent authority vide orders dated 20.08.2002 and again on 08.04.2006 on the ground that the writ petitioner had purchased the land after the cut-off date i.e. 30.09.1991.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition (S)

No.1625/2012 seeking a direction to the SECL authorities to consider his claim for grant of employment in lieu of the land so acquired. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 06.11.2025, wherein it was observed that the action of the SECL authorities in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for employment is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the orders impugned therein were quashed, and the SECL authorities were directed to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for employment within a period of 30 days. It was further observed that the writ petitioner had been agitating his claim since the year 2012 and had prima facie been subjected to discr