Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 42413 (CHH)

PRAMOD KUMAR KANWAR (PAIKARA) v. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

WPS/8296/2018 · 2025-07-21

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:35199 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8296 of 2018 1 - Pramod Kumar Kanwar (Paikara) S/o Sundar Singh Kanwar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Beltikari, Post Deepka, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman- Cum Managing Director, Head Office, Basant Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief General Manager S. E. C. L. Gevra Area Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief General Manager S. E. C. L. Gevra Area Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Staff Officer (Land Revenue) South Eastern Coalfields Limited Gevra Area, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - Collector Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : None, in two rounds For Respondent-SECL : Mr. Atul Kesharwani, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 22-07-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant employment to the petitioner Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.23 14:19:20 +0530 2 in lieu of the acquirement of land in Gevra Project and to set-aside/quash the impugned letter dated 21-08-2018 (Annexure P-1). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to comply with the guidelines and the circulars issued by the government for grant of employment. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate. 2) It is pleaded in the petition that land bearing Khasra No. 768/4 ad- measuring 0.32 acre belonging to the petitioner situated at Village–Beltikari, Tehsil–Katghora, District–Korba was acquired by the respondent authorities in the year 1981-82 and petitioner has claimed employment in lieu of land acquisition. It is further pleaded that as per policy of State Government dated 25.09.1991, petitioner is entitled to get employment. It is also pleaded that other family members have given their no objection in his favor. It is stated that representation was made by petitioner pursuant to order passed by this Court in WPS No. 4716 of 2018 but the representation was rejected vide order dated 23.07.2018 on the ground that no application was moved by the petitioner within prescribed period and present application has been moved at belated stage. It is prayed in the petition that order dated 21.08.2018 may be quashed. 3) There is no representation on behalf of petitioner in two rounds. 4) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-SECL 3 submits that land bearing Kharsra No. 768/4 ad-measuring 0.32 acre was acquired in the year 1981-82 and at that time, petitioner was not born and after attaining majority, he approached this Court for the first time by filing writ petition in year 2018. He further submits that representation moved by the petitioner pursuant to order passed in WPS No. 4716 of 2018 has been rejected on the ground that same has been moved at belated stage and his claim is hit by delay and latches. 5) Heard. 6) Evidently, land belonging to the petitioner was acquired way back in the year 1981-82 and for the first time, petitioner has claimed appointment in year 2018. His claim has been rejected by respondent No. 3 stating that no claim regarding employment in lieu of land bearing Khasra No. 768/4 situated at Village–Beltikari was moved within stipulated period and thus the claim of petitioner is hit by delay and latches. 7) Taking into consideration the facts of present case and the reasons assigned by the authority concerned in the order impugned, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya