1 2025:CGHC:31951 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 477 of 2025 1 - Deepak Prasad S/o Buttu Rao Aged About 52 Years R/o House No. M-341, Jarhi Bhatgaon, District Sarguja, (Now Surajpur) C.G. --- Applicant versus 1 - South Eastern Coal Fields Limited Through Chairman-Cum- Managing Director, S.E.C.L. Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 2 - The General Manager Personnel And Administration, S.E.C.L. Seepat Road, Bilaspur, C.G. 3 - General Manager (West) Recruitment/Welfare S.E.C.L. Seepat Road Bilaspur, C.G. 4 - Kishun Mnadal S/o Mathura Mandal Aged About 52 Years R/o Karharbari, District Giridih, Jharkhand 5 - Tooplal Mandal S/o Shri Sukhdev Mandal Aged About 56 Years R/o Village And Post Chunglo, P.S. Jamua, District Giridih, Jharkhand --- Respondent(s) MCC No. 319 of 2024 1 - Baleshwar Kumar S/o Late Shri Dukhi Kumar Aged About 50 Years R/o Garhi Colony, Post- Bhatgaon, Dist. Sarguja, C.G. ---Applicant Versus 1 - South Eastern Coal Fields Limited Through Chairman-Cum- Managing Director, S.E.C.L. Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G. AYUSHI SINGH Digitally signed by AYUSHI SINGH Date: 2025.07.15 16:56:57 +0530 2 2 - The General Manager Personnel And Administration, S.E.C.L. Seepat Road, Bilaspur, C.G. 3 - General Manager (West) Recruitment/ Welfare S.E.C.L. Seepat Road, Bilaspur, C.G. 4 - Deputy Commissioner Giridih, Dist. Giridih (Jharkhand) --- Respondent(s) For Applicants : Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents No.1, 2 & 3 : Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate and Mr. Shailendra Shukla, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 10/07/2025 1. Since the issue involved in both the MCCs is similar, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. The instant MCCs are being preferred by the applicants for modification of the order dated 12.9.2019 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.4887 of 2008, WPS No.2429/2009 & other connected matters. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants were appointed on the post of Mining Sirdar in SECL, Bhatgaon, District Surajpur in the category of Scheduled Caste in the year 2002. Subsequently, in the year 2007 applicants were terminated from service by the respondent/ SECL on the ground that they have secured the said employment on the basis of forged and fabricated 3 caste certificate. Being aggrieved by the said termination, applicant Deepak Prasad and applicant Baleshwar Kumar filed WPS No.2429/2009 and WPS No. 4887/2008 respectively, which were withdrawn vide common order dated 12.9.2019 passed in WPS No.4887/2008, WPS No.2429/2009 & other connected matters by the applicants with liberty to agitate the matter before the Appellate Authority of the SECL and applicants were granted liberty to file appeal before the SECL within 45 days from the date of passing of order. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that applicants of instant MCCs have neither permitted their counsel to withdraw the writ petitions nor their counsel had ever informed them about the said withdrawal. He also submits that applicants have never filed appeal before the Appellate Authority of SECL in compliance of order dated 12.9.2019 as they were not at all aware of the withdrawal order. He next submits that fabricated appeal memo was filed on behalf of applicants on 31.12.2019 by putting their forged signature and they are also not aware of the fate of that appeal. He also submits that since their petitions have been withdrawn without the permission of applicants by the then counsel and they have also not filed any appeal in compliance of order dated 12.9.2019, hence, it is prayed that order dated 12.9.2019 passed in both the writ petitions in respect of both the applicants may be modified to the extent of its withdrawal and both the writ petitions 4 may be listed for rehearing and it be decided on merit. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/ SECL referring to his reply submits that both the writ petitions were withdrawn by the learned counsel for the petitioners seeking liberty to agitate the matter before the Appellate Authority of the SECL which was permitted by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 12.9.2019 (Annexure P1 in both MCCs) and petitioners were granted liberty to file appeal within 45 days from the date of said order. He further submits that in compliance of that order, both the applicants have filed appeal (Annexure R1 in both the MCCs) dated 31.12.2019, therefore, they cannot say that withdrawal of writ petitions was not within their knowledge and appeal has not been filed by them. He further submits that appeal filed by both the applicants are pending consideration before the respondent / SECL and yet same has not been finalized. He next submits that if withdrawal of both the writ petitions was not within the knowledge of applicants then they ought to have filed MCC within reasonable period, but, they have filed the instant MCCs in the year 2024-25, i.e., after 5-6 years from the said withdrawal, therefore, these MCCs are liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches also. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and perused the material available on record. 5 6. Both the writ petitions were filed by the applicants in the year 2008- 09 as per record which were withdrawn by them seeking liberty to agitate the matter before the Appellate Authority of the SECL and the applicants were granted liberty to file appeal within 45 days from the date of order i.e., 12.9.2019. Respondent / SECL has filed the copy of memo of appeal dated 31.12.2019 (Annexure R1 in both the MCCs) filed by both the applicants in compliance of order dated 12.9.2019. However, if the writ petitions were not withdrawn under the instructions of applicants and they were not aware of order dated 12.9.2019 and further appeal Annexure R1 dated 31.12.2019 was not filed by them, then they ought to have taken appropriate steps immediately after 12.9.2019 or at the earliest whenever they came to know about that order. It is to be noticed here that applicants have not disclosed the fact that first time on which date they came to know about order dated 12.9.2019. It cannot be accepted that applicants were so negligent about the fate of their writ petitions by not seeking any information from their counsel after the year 2019. They filed the MCC No.319/2024 on 09.4.2024 and MCC No.477/2025 on 30.4.2025, i.e., after more than 5-6 years from the date of order passed in writ petitions, such negligent conduct of applicants cannot be ignored. 7. As per the respondent / SECL, in compliance of order dated 12.9.2019 passed by this Court, applicants have already filed appeal 6 before the competent Authority of SECL, which is still pending consideration. 8. The present MCCs also suffers from delay and laches, as the writ petitions were withdrawn vide order dated 12.9.2019 (Annexure P1 in both MCCs) and the present MCCs were filed in the year 2024- 2025 with a delay of more than 5-6 years and it has not been explained satisfactorily by the applicants as to why such a long delay has occurred in filing the MCCs. 9. It is also mentionable here that the lawyers should update their client about the progress of the case, but, it is also the responsibility of the client to take information about the status of their case from their lawyers time to time and to keep their lawyers informed of any new information, changes in circumstances, or other relevant details that may affect the case. Failure to communicate effectively can lead to misunderstandings, missed deadlines, strategic errors, and ultimately, could negatively impact the outcome of the case. Open and timely communication from both side ensures that clients are aware of their legal situation, understand the potential risks and benefits, and can make informed decisions about their case. In the present case, it does not seems that counsel for petitioners had withdrawn their writ petitions without their instructions. It also does not seems that some other person had filed memo of appeal before the Authorities of the SECL. Since applicants have already availed 7 the liberty granted to them by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 12.9.2019 by filing appeals and after 5-6 years they woke up from slumber and filed these MCCs and also cause of delay shown in filing MCCs is not found to be satisfactory, I do not feel inclined to condone the delay in filing MCCs. 10.In view of above, both the MCCs are dismissed for want of sufficient cause to condone the delay as also on the ground of delay and laches. However, as stated by learned counsel for the respondent / SECL that appeals filed by applicants (annexure R1 in both the MCCs) before the SECL are still pending, liberty is left with the applicants to pursue their appeals. Further, the respondent / SECL is directed to decide the same at the earliest by giving notice to the applicants. SD/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Ayushi