1 2025:CGHC:15840 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3954 of 2017  Baldau Prasad Kashyap S/o Nathuram Kashyap, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Balha, P. O. Kharoud, Police Statin Shivrinarayan, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Throgh General Manager, Gevra Area P.O. Gevra Project, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh 2. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through General Manager, Gevra Area P.O. Gevra Project, Korba District Korba, Chhattisgarh. , District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3. Personnel Manager, Sourth Eastern Coalfields Limited, Gevra Area, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. , District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4. Collector, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. , District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mrs. Seema Singh, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3/ SECL : Mr. Satish Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No. 4/ State : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 04-04-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following relief(s):- (i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to re-consider the employment 2 to the petitioner under the provisions of the rehabilitation policies. (ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be further pleased to direct the respondents company to pay the compensation to the petitioner with the interest including the employment of the petitioner. (iii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be further pleased to direct the respondents to give into effect the provisions of rehabilitation policy in its letter and spirit and further direct to company with the terms of the rehabilitation scheme. (iv) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass the order in favor of the petitioner as may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in lieu of the acquisition of the land, appointment was offered to the petitioner vide letter dated 20.09.1995. She further submits that petitioner was required to join the service by 27.09.1995 but on account of family dispute, he could not join the service. She contends that representation was made before respondent authorities on 05.12.2015 but till date, no decision has been taken. She further contends that direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to decide the pending representation. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of SECL opposes. He submits that order of appointment was issued on 20.09.1995 and seven days’ time was granted to the petitioner to join the service but petitioner failed to comply with the said order and after 20 years approached the authorities. He further submits that claim of petitioner is liable to be rejected on the grounds of delay and latches. He prays that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) Learned State counsel supports the contention advanced by Mr. Gupta. 3 5) Heard. 6) Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by Mrs. Seema Singh, instant petition is hereby being disposed of directing respondents No. 1 to 3 to decide the pending representation dated 05.12.2015 expeditiously. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 7) With the aforesaid direction(s), instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya