1 2025:CGHC:54151 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1625 of 2012 1 - Mahendra Kumar Sahu S/o Motiram Sahu Aged About 40 Years Occupation Advocate Resident Of Sonhat Post Office Sonhat District Korea Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd, Through Its The Chairman Cum Managing Director Sipat Road Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, The State Rehabilitation Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief General Manager S.E.C.L. Area Bishrampur District Surguja Now Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sahu, Petitioner in Person For respondents/SECL : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06.11.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief (s) : “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order directing the respondent authorities to consider in the case of petitioner immediately and provide suitable REKHA SINGH -2- appointment to the petitioner in S.E.C.L. 10.2 Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.3. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash tak the impugned orders dated 20.08.2002 (Annexure P-14) and 08.04.2006 (Annexure P-15) issued by the respondent authorities.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner purchased Survey Nos.341/381, 186/388 x, 182/25, 186/80, 186/103 [k] total area 1.21 acres situated at Village Govindpur through registered sale deed dated 05.01.1993. The surface right was acquired by the SECL authorities and an award was passed on 21.05.2002. The compensation of Rs.31,291/- was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner applied for employment according to the rehabilitation policy issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh dated 25th of September, 1991. The claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 20th of August, 2002 and again on 08th of April, 2006 on the ground that the petitioner purchased the plots after cut off date i.e. 30th of September, 1991. The petitioner has challenged those orders and has sought a direction to the SECL authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for employment in lieu of land acquired. 3. Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sahu, the petitioner in person would submit that internal communication between the SECL and the District Collector was never made public which provides that the persons who have purchased the property after 30th of September, 1991 would not be entitled for employment. He would further submit that an award was passed in his favour and his claim of employment was rejected but he was never communicated by the SECL authorities. Mr. Sahu, petitioner in person 3 would submit that the persons who purchased property after 30th of September, 1991 were considered and offered appointment by the SECL and they are still working. He would contend that total 1.21 acres of his land was acquired but he has been denied his legal claim of employment. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for SECL authorities would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sahu. He would submit that the mining rights of total 61.597 hectares of Village Govindpur was acquired on 16.01.1963 in accordance with the Coal Bearing Areas(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act of 1957’) through a Notification dated 02.01.1960. He would contend that the surface rights of Village Govindpur was not acquired but later on, to avoid any complication, the SECL issued a letter addressed to the District Collector on 30th of September, 1991 to acquire surface right. He would further contend that on 19th of July, 2002, the Collector issued an order to the effect that the persons who purchased the property after 30th of September, 1991 would not be entitled for employment. Mr. Singh would submit that as the petitioner purchased the property after 30th of September, 1991, therefore, he was not found eligible for appointment and therefore, his claim was rejected. Mr. Singh would contend that the persons who were appointed contrary to the direction issued by the Collector, action has been proposed and notices have been issued. He would contend that the petitioner had accepted compensation and at that time, no objection was raised, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. -4- 5. Mr. Shrivastava, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by the petitioner. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. Admittedly, the lands bearing Survey Nos. 341/381, 186/388 x, 182/25, 186/80, 186/103 [k, total area 1.21 acres situated at Village Govindpur belonging to the petitioner were acquired for mining purpose by the SECL under the Act of 1957 and later on, surface right was acquired and an award was passed on 21.05.2002. The claim of the petitioner for employment has been rejected on the ground that he purchased the property after 30th of September, 1991. In letter dated 30th of September, 1991, there is no whisper to the effect that the person who would purchase the property after said date would not get employment. The letter dated 30th of September, 1991 was internal communication between the SECL and the District Collector. The Collector took decision on said communication on 19th of July, 2002 and held that the persons who have purchased the property after 30th of September, 1991 cannot claim employment according to the rehabilitation policy of the State of Madhya Pradesh. 8. The decision was taken by the Collector after passing of award dated 21.05.2002. From 1991 till 19.07.2002, the purchasers/land oustees were not aware of the fact that they were not eligible or entitled to get employment against acquisition of their lands. The letter dated 30.09.1991 & order dated 19.07.2002 were not public either by SECL or by the State authorities, thus, the action of the SECL as well as the 5 District Collector was illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory which deprive the petitioner and other persons from their legal rights. 9. The claim of the petitioner for employment has been rejected only on the ground that he purchased the property after 30th of September, 1991 but no document has been placed by the SECL authorities to demonstrate that ban was put on purchase of the land in that area after 30.09.1991. 10.With regard to delay in filing this petition, the SECL has not placed any document to establish that the orders of rejection were duly communicated to the petitioner, therefore, the contention made by Mr. Singh cannot be accepted and is hereby rejected. 11.The action of the SECL authorities in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for employment is not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, all the orders issued in this regard are hereby quashed. The SECL authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for employment within a period of 30 days from today. The petitioner is agitating his legal and rightful claim since 2012 and prima facie it appears that he has been discriminated, therefore, the SECL authorities shall pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from today. 12.With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. SD/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha