1 2025:CGHC:47268 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5934 of 2023 1 - Milan Kumar Pandey S/o Late Julius Pandey Aged About 63 Years Occupation - Retired Grade - C, Employee, Electrical Fitter, At Kusmunda Area Of Secl, R/o Qt. No. M361, Vikash Nagar, Kusmunda, Tahsil - Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through - Its Managing Director, Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - General Manager (P And A), Secl, Head Quarter, Seepat Raod, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The General Manager Secl, Kusmunda, Area Tahsil - Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 15.09.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly call for the entire record in relates to the case of the petitioner. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly be pleased to issued a writ /or writs / order / or orders / to direct the respondents authorities, to decide the representation of the petitioner, dated 15.06.2020, (Annexure P/1), within a period of one month, in the ends of justice, and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities, to examined the case of the petitioner, and grant him the relief as prayed by the petitioner, in his representation, in the ends of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief, this Hon'ble Court, deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was employed by the respondent department as a Grade-C employee in the capacity of an Electrical Fitter. On 30.06.2016, the respondent department passed an order of superannuation against the petitioner, which the petitioner challenged before the appropriate tribunal. Upon consideration, the tribunal issued an award dated 19.06.2017, wherein it was held that the refusal of management to correct the date of birth of petitioner, as reflected in Form B, CMPF records, and his educational certificates, was illegal. The tribunal further quashed the order of superannuation dated 30.06.2016, directed the reinstatement of the petitioner into service, and ordered the payment of salary from the date of superannuation until reinstatement. The award stipulated that the dues be paid within 30 days of the notification of the award, failing 3 which interest would accrue until realization. Subsequently, a compromise was reached between the petitioner and the respondent management on 30.04.2018, formalized by a compromise deed, which led to the reinstatement of petitioner. The petitioner resumed his duties and continued in service until his retirement on 30.06.2020. Despite the clear directions of the tribunal and the terms of the compromise deed, the respondent department failed to grant the petitioner certain benefits to which he is legally entitled. These include promotion, payment of Leave Travel Concession (LTC) from the period of 2016 to 2020, reimbursement of medical bills in accordance with the policies applicable under South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), and other benefits routinely extended to employees by the respondent department. In light of these omissions, the petitioner submitted a formal representation dated 15.06.2020 to respondent No. 3, requesting the fulfillment of the benefits as mandated by the award and compromise deed. However, despite the passage of a significant period, the respondent authorities have failed to take any decision on the representation submitted by petitioner. This persistent inaction and denial of relief amounts to a clear violation of the petitioner’s rights and is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the principles of natural justice and established law. The representation submitted by petitioner remains pending without any redressal, causing undue hardship and prejudice. Given that the petitioner has exhausted all other available remedies and 4 there exists no alternate efficacious remedy, he has been compelled to approach this Court through the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner is unequivocally entitled to certain service benefits including promotion, Leave Travel Concession (LTC) amounts covering the period from 2016 to 2020, reimbursement of medical bills, and other amenities as clearly mandated by the award dated 19.06.2017 passed by the tribunal and further reinforced by the compromise deed executed between the petitioner and the respondent department on 30.04.2018. Despite these binding legal directives, the respondent authorities have failed to comply with the same and have deliberately withheld the benefits rightly accruing to the petitioner. In an effort to secure his lawful rights, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 15.06.2020 before respondent No. 3, requesting the enforcement of the tribunal award and the terms of the compromise deed. However, despite the lapse of considerable time since the submission of the representation, no action has been taken by the respondent department to address or decide upon the grievances of petitioner. This prolonged inaction is indefensible and amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power, which violates the fundamental right of petitioner to fair treatment and due process. The continued pendency of the representation submitted by petitioner has caused undue hardship and prejudice, depriving him of benefits 5 that are not only contractual but also legally enforceable. Furthermore, such inaction on the part of the respondents reflects a clear disregard for the rule of law and the mandates of justice, thereby warranting intervention by this Court. Hence, petitioner is before this Court with a limited prayer to direct the respondents to decide the pending representation within a time frame fixed by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the service- related dispute of petitioner concerning his date of birth and superannuation was already adjudicated by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, which quashed the order of superannuation and directed reinstatement with salary. Subsequently, the petitioner himself sought a compromise settlement on 28.04.2018, which was mutually agreed upon and resulted in his reinstatement without any monetary benefits for the period prior to rejoining, and with conditions accepted by the petitioner, including the withdrawal of claims for back wages and no further contest on related issues. The representation dated 15.06.2020 submitted by the petitioner is not sustainable, as the petitioner voluntarily entered into the settlement and was not compelled by the management, especially considering his position as President of the Area JCC. However, since the petitioner has approached this Court with the limited prayer of directing the respondents to decide his pending 6 representation, the respondents have no objection to this limited relief being granted. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 6. Having considered the limited nature of the relief sought by the petitioner, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondents to decide the representation dated 15.06.2020 submitted by petitioner without further delay. 7. It is clarified that this Court is not expressing any opinion on merits of the claims of petitioner regarding promotion, Leave Travel Concession, medical reimbursement, or any other service benefits. The respondents are therefore directed to consider and decide the representation strictly in accordance with law, taking into account all relevant provisions, awards, and agreements, and to communicate their decision to the petitioner within a stipulated time frame. 8. With this observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna