1 2025:CGHC:36732-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 539 of 2025 Chandrashekhar S/o Late Heram Singh, Aged About 46 Years R/o Gram Ralia, Post Mudhali Tahsil Katghora, District- Korba (Chhattisgarh), ... Appellant(s) versus 1. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through The Director (Personnel), Seepat, Road, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). 2. Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Gavera Extension Opencast Project, Gavera Area, District- Korba (Chhattisgarh). 3. Land Revenue Officer, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Office Of The Geneal Manager, Gavera Extension Opencast Project, Gavera Area, Distric- Korba (Chhattisgarh). 4. Collector, Korba, District- Korba Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.07.29 16:22:36 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 29 .07.2025 1. Today, the matter is listed on default as the present appeal is barred by 52 days, but delay application is not filed. 2. Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government, appearing for respondent No. 4/State have no objection if delay in filing the appeal is condoned, therefore, we condone the delay of 52 days in filing the present appeal. 3. With the consent of the parties, the present appeal heard finally. 4. Heard Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 4/State. 5. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1560 of 2018 (Chandrashekar vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 6. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that in an 3 identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 492 of 2025 (Shivsant Sahu vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Others) vide order dated 18.07.2025 observing as follows : “8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition i.e. WPS No. 2327 of 2018 vide order dated 06.03.2025, holding that a perusal of the applications would show that the writ petitioner along with others moved application along with affidavit before the SECL authorities for the grant of additional compensation in lieu of the employment and those applications were accepted by the SECL authorities and the writ petitioner herein was paid Rs.60,000/- additional compensation in lieu of the employment. Further, taking into consideration the fact that the writ petitioner has already accepted the additional compensation in lieu of the employment, the learned Single Judge concluded that nothing survives for adjudication in the petition preferred by the writ petitioner. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is 4 liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 492 of 2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 492 of 2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 492 of 2025. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 18.07.2025 passed in WA No. 492 of 2025 (Shivsant Sahu vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Others). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan