1 2025:CGHC:17070-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 234 of 2025 1 - Dhaniram Sahu S/o Teejram Sahu Aged About 83 Years R/o Village - Giddha, P.O. - Semra, Police Station - Nawagarh, District - Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shravan Kumar Sahu S/o Dhaniram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Giddha, P.O. - Semra, Police Station - Nawagarh, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Chairman -Cum- Managing Director, Head Office, Basant Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Korba Area, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deputy Chief Manager ( Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Korba Area, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Central Public Information Officer South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Korba Area, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Manager (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Rajgamar Colliery, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Pardeshi Presently Posted As Mechanical Fitter, 6-7 Mines, Rajgamar Colliery, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh, R/o Qtr. No. M-346, Ompur, Rajgamar, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. S.P. Sannat, Advocate For respondent No.1 to 5/SECL : Mr. Satish Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15 . 04 .202 5 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. S.P. Sannat, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Satish Gupta, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 / SECL on I.A No. 01 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 289 days in filing the appeal. 3. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the said IA, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 5. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellants, who were writ petitioners in the writ petition have challenged the order dated 12.04.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.2223 of 2024 (Dhaniram Sahu & Another Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 6. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the 3 petitioner No. 1 was appointed on the post of Pump Helper by the respondent No. 3 on 20.02.1967 and had been working at Rajgamar Colliery under the respondent No. 4, but later, he became ill and he was unable to discharge his duties, therefore, he was declared medically unfit by the Medical Board of SECL, Korba on 15.01.1992. The petitioner No.1 is having 3 sons who were minor at that time, therefore, none of them could claim for service, but when the petitioner No. 2 became major, he prayed for employment which was not considered as the respondent No.6 fraudulently has been appointed on 09.07.1992 in place of the petitioner No. 1. Thus, the petitioners have filed first writ petition which was registered as WP(S) No. 423/2024 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.01.2024, thereafter, again the petitioners have filed another writ petition which was registered as WPS No. 2223/2024 and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 12.04.2024. Hence, this appeal. 7. Mr. S.P. Sannat, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that Single Judge ought to have considered the fact that there are 3 sons of the petitioner No.1 i.e. Shravan Kumar/petitioner No.2, Rohit and Laxman, but at the time of declaring unfit to the petitioner No.1, his three sons were minors, therefore, none of them could claim for service in place of the petitioner No.1. When the petitioner No.2 became major and he tried to get service under the respondent authorities, then he 4 came to know that someone is working in place of the petitioner No.1. Thereafter, the petitioner No.2 moved an application before the respondent No.4 under the Right to Information Act, then the respondent No.4 informed him vide letter dated 11.04.2019 that the respondent No.6 has been appointed on 09.07.1992 in place of the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.6 has been working under the respondent No.5 on the post of mechanical fitter in Mines No.6-7, Rajgamar Colliery, SECL. He further argued that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the fact that respondent No.6 has prepared fake documents i.e. the affidavit dated 20.01.1992 and the application dated 21.01.1992 in the name of petitioner No.1 / Dhaniram in his favour for the purpose of his appointment. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Satish Gupta, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents / SECL opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that the respondent No. 6 was appointed on 09.07.1992 and the petitioners have filed writ petition after 32 years of appointment of respondent No. 6, thus the writ petition suffers from delay and latches and hence, the learned Single Judge, after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly dismissed the writ petition, in which no interference is called for. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 10. From perusal of the impugned order and the materials available 5 on record, it transpires that the respondent No. 6 was appointed on 09.07.1992 and the petitioners have filed writ petition after 32 years of appointment of respondent No. 6. Thus, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on account of delay and latches. Moreover, the respondent No. 6 has already rendered 32 years of service and few years are left for his retirement, as such, it will not be justifiable for this Court to unsettle the issue, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra