1 2025:CGHC:51652 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10078 of 2019 1 - Ramesh Kumar S/o Chandraman Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Jhumarpara, Post Karanji, Police Station Vishrampur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coal Fields Limited Through Cmd (Chairman Managing Director), South Eastern Coal Fields Limited, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., 2 - Duty General Manager Office Sub-Area Manager, Kumda Sub-Area, Powa-Kumda, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., 3 - General Manager Area Vishrampur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., 4 - CTI, Chairman South Eastern Coal Fields Limited, Kolkata (West Bengal), ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri SB Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Order On Board 16/10/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders quashing the impugned order dated 09.10.2019 (Annex.P/1) and the respondents may kindly be KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.10.16 17:17:01 +0530 2 directed to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders to the respondents to give all the consequential benefits to the petitioner including salary for the period of termination till his reinstatement. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the present writ petition is not maintainable, as the alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to raise dispute under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act inasmuch as departmental enquiry was not conducted in proper manner. In the event, any dispute is raised and conciliation fails, appropriate Government refers the matter to the Labour Court/Tribunal to decide the said issue. Despite the availability of alternative remedy, the writ petition has been directly filed before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would further submit that the petitioner has obtained appointment fraudulently by showing that he is the husband of Balmoti, who is the land loser. When the complaint was received by the Department, a departmental enquiry has been initiated. He has drawn attention of the Court to the School Admission Register (annexed with the return) of Balmoti, daughter of Rameshwar Ram Rajwar, resident of village Kamlapur, Arsota, Gangikot, PS Jangarah, District Surajpur. Profession of the father is mentioned as ‘Service’. The date of birth of Balmoti was recorded as 22nd April, 1991. Learned counsel would further submit that the present writ petition has been filed on the ground that Sunanda and Balmoti are the same persons. 3 As per the relationship certificate issued by the Sarpanch of village Jhomarpara, Tehsil & District Surajpur, the name of wife of the petitioner is mentioned as Sunanda Jaiswal and her date of birth has been recorded as 15th December, 1976. Her first child namely Ankit Jaiswal was born on 30th April, 1997. Learned Counsel categorically submits that it is naturally not possible that Balmoti is the mother of Ankit Jaiswal. Therefore, the present petition being bereft of any substance deserves to be dismissed. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is not pressing this writ petition. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not pressed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve