1 2025:CGHC:50571 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 11551 of 2025 Lambodar Shyam S/o Tikait Ram Aged About 43 Years R/o Vishrampur Gevra Basti, P S- Kusmunda, Post- Kusmunda, Tehsil- Dipka, District Korba C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur C.G. 2 - Standing Committee On Pap Through General Manager (P And P), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area, District Korba C.G. 3 - General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area, District Korba C.G. 4 - Staff Officer, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area, District Korba C.G. 5 - Krishna Kumar S/o Ramcharan R/o Village- Durpa, Mongrabhatha, District- Korba, Through General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area, District Korba C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Rakshita Mishra, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4/SECL : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpayee, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 10.10.2025 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the orders dated 11.04.2025 and 12.03.2025 passed by respondents No. 3 & 2 by BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.10.16 11:22:13 +0530 2 which the petitioner’s claim for grant of employment as per rehabilitation policy has been rejected stating that the petitioner’s land situated at Village Durpa bearing Khasra No. 107/3, area 0.70 acre has been acquired by Kusmunda Project and employment has already been provided to Shri Krishna Kumar (respondent No. 5) in the year 1996. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No. 5 has secured the employment on the basis of forged and fabricated document, therefore, employment should be cancelled by the SECL. He would further submit that an enquiry has also been conducted and vide order dated 13.06.2022 passed by Additional Collector, Korba (C.G.) it was found that the land belongs petitioner’s father namely TikaitRam S/o Bhukhauram. He would further submit that though respondent No. 5 has been given employment in the year 1996 but since fraud has been committed by respondent No. 5 and fraud vitiates everything, therefore, plea of limitation will not come in way of this Court by way of petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and would pray for setting aside the impugned orders dated 11.04.2025 and 12.03.2025. 3. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 would submit that employment was given to respondent No. 5 in the year 1996 on the land bearing Khasra No. 107/3, area 0.70 acre and the petitioner has never approached the authorities for such a long period of 29 years, as such the present petition is hopelessly barred by limitation and on this count alone the petitioner is not entitled to get relief and would pray for dismissal of the petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3 5. From bare perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petition, it is quite vivid that respondent No. 5 was given employment in the year 1996 and during said period of 29 years, the petitioner has written a complaint on 10.12.2021 to the Police but has not approached before this Court for challenging the appointment order of respondent No. 5. 6. Considering this aspect of the matter that the petitioner slept over his right for such a long period, though for filing Writ Court there is no limitation provided under the Constitution of India but delay in filing the writ petition may be ground to deny the equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and even the petitioner has made complaint on 10.12.2021 i.e. after lapse of 25 years which shows that the petitioner was not vigilant towards his right and keeping well settled position of law in mind that delay defeats justice, I am of the view that on the count of delay and latches, the instant petition deserved to dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. 7. However, the pendency of criminal cases or any other proceedings has not been adversely affected by dismissal of the writ petition as this Court has only examined the case of the petitioner for getting employment after lapse of 29 years. 8. With this observation and direction, the instant petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika