1 2025:CGHC:23253-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 329 of 2025 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Chairman-Cum- Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Personnel South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy General Manager (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Hasdeo, Chhattisgarh Area, District – Korea 4 - Sub Area Manager Office Of Sub Area Manager, Rajnagar, R.O. Sub Area, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Hasdeo Area, Post - Rajnagar Colliery, District - Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh 5 - Senior Manager (Personnel) Rajnagar, R.O. Sub Area, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Hasdeo Area, Post - Rajnagar Colliery S.E.C.L. Hasdeo Area, District - Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh ... Appellants versus 1 - Laxmi Bai W/o Banshi Lal Sahu Aged About 42 Years D/o Fandu, R/o Rajnagar Colliery, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Hasdeo Area, District - Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh 2 - Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Banshi Lal Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Rajnagar R.O. Colliery, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Hasdeo Area, District - Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12 . 06 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellants/SECL as well as Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. 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 respondents in writ petition, have challenged the order dated 04.12.2024 (Annexure-A/1) passed by learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 7031 of 2016, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners therein was disposed of by the learned Single Judge with direction to the appellants / respondents therein to consider and decide the application of the petitioner No.1 in accordance with the Coal India Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2014 (revised) (for short “revised Scheme, 2014”) within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy to that order. This appeal is also preferred against the order dated 25.03.2025 passed in Review Petition No. 60/2025 (Annexure-A/2), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the review petition filed by the appellants/SECL. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that a writ petition being WPS No. 7031 of 2016 has been filed by two petitioners (mother & son) seeking that application of petitioner No.1 is liable to be considered as per the revised Scheme, 2014 3 and her son i.e. petitioner No.2 herein be granted employment in her place, which has not been considered by the respondent- authorities on the ground that the Scheme was effective from 26.11.2014 to 25.05.2015 and the enquiry report with regard to complaint made against petitioner No.1 was received from the Additional Collector on 11.12.2015. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 04.12.2024 observing that petitioner No.1 has made the application on 12.01.2015 between the cut-off date i.e. 26.11.2014 to 25.05.2015 which was sent for enquiry on certain complaint though the complaint has been found to be false vide Annexure R/3, but, the Additional Collector did not conclude the enquiry right in time and it was not the case of the SECL that the Collector was requested to complete the said enquiry and sent the report before 25.05.2015. Therefore, the delay in part of the State Officials in conducting the enquiry against the frivolous complaint on the application of petitioner No.1, petitioners cannot be held to be responsible and cannot be made suffer on account of the inaction/delay and laches on the part of SECL as well as the State and directed the respondent-authorities to consider and decide the application of the petitioner No.1 in accordance with the revised Scheme, 2014 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy to that order and the said impugned order dated 04.12.2024 has been sought to be reviewed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge by filling REVP No. 60 of 2025 and the 4 same has been dismissed finding no any error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the same. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants / SECL submitted that since the constitutionality of the Scheme which introduces a new mode of appointment by inheritance and nomination and was effective from 26.11.2014 to 25.05.2015 has been examined by the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand and already declared the same as unconstitutional and no more operational under the law, therefore, the office of appellants is unable to consider the claim of respondent No.1 under the said Scheme. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents / writ petitioners opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that the learned Single Judge, after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly disposed of the writ petition, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order and the materials available on record, petitioner No.1 has made the application on 12.01.2015 between the cut-off date i.e. 26.11.2014 to 25.05.2015 which was sent for enquiry on certain complaint though the complaint has been found to be false vide Annexure R/3, but, the Additional Collector did not conclude the enquiry right in time and it was not the case of the SECL that the Collector was requested 5 to complete the said enquiry and sent the report before 25.05.2015. Therefore, the delay in part of the State Officials in conducting the enquiry against the frivolous complaint on the application of petitioner No.1, petitioners cannot be held to be responsible and cannot be made suffer on account of the inaction/delay and laches on the part of SECL as well as the State. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / respondents herein, 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. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra