1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 258 of 2022 1 - Ashwani Mahant S/o Late Nani Das Aged About 33 Years R/o Gevra Basti P.S. Kusmunda Tahsil Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Chief Managing Director (Personal/administration/labour Empowerment) South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - The General Manager (Excavation) South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Kusmunda Project, Gevra, District Korba (C.G.) 3 - The Chief Personal Officer, South South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Kusmunda Projects Gevra, District Korba (C.G.) ---- Respondent For petitioner : Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.1/UOI : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Pandey, CGC For other respondents : None appears though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.03.2026 Heard. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s): “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the present case. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the impugned order dated 18.10.2019 (ANNEXURE P/1) passed by the Respondent no. 2. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities -2- to give employment assistance to the petitioner as per in accordance with law. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts of the case are that father of the petitioner namely Late Nain Das was working as a Dumper Operator under the respondents but went missing on 25.07.2003 and was not traceable thereafter. Since the father of the petitioner could not be traced for a considerable period, therefore, a suit was filed to decare said person as dead. In the said civil suit, judgment and decree was passed in favour of the petitioner on 17.12.2013 from the Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba. Pursuant to decree, a death certificate was issued on 17.12.2013. The petitioner moved an application for grant of dependent employment on 29.01.2009 and when no decision was taken, WPS No.845 of 2017 was filed, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.07.2019 with a direction to the SECL authorities to take decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of order. The petitioner approached the SECL authorities and claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 18.10.2019 on the ground that the claim of dependent employment based on civil death has been removed from the policy for dependent employment. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner was missing, therefore, the petitioner approached the competent Civil Court and decree of Civil death 3 was granted in his favour. He would further submit that the petitioner approached the authority within reasonable time and when no action was taken, a writ petition was filed. He would contend that the respondent authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioner for dependent employment on non-existent ground. He would pray to quash the order dated 18.10.2019. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would oppose submissions. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. It is true that father of the petitioner went missing and a decree of civil death was granted by the competent Civil Court. The petitioner approached the SECL authorities on 29.01.2009. The SECL authorities decided the claim of the petitioner pursuant to order passed in WPS No.845 of 2017 dated 12.07.2019. It is stated in the order impugned that the claim for dependent employment cannot be considered based on civil death of a SECL employee as said criteria has been removed from Policy for dependent employment. A policy decision has been taken by the SECL authorities and the petitioner has not challenged the said policy, therefore, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha