1 2025:CGHC:41808 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 620 of 2022 * - Dev Prasad Verma S/o Ratan Singh, Aged About 42 Years R/o. Village Bundeli, Post Bandora, Tahsil Malkharoda, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Head Office, Basant Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raigarh Area, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Regional Executive Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raigarh Area, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Incharge Officer (Land Revenue), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Chhal Sub Area, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Collector Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Dharamjaigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Sannat, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4 For Respondents No. 5 & 6 : : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 19/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant employment to the petitioner in lieu of the acquired by the respondent department and to set-aside/quash the impugned Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.27 16:28:03 +0530 2 order dated 06.02.2008 (Annexure P-1), which is against the public policy. 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the land of the petitioner bearing Survey No. 148/1(ga) admeasuring 0.049 hectare (0.121 acres) situated at Village Chandrashekharpur, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh was acquired under the Coal Bearing Act in the year 2003 and award was passed on 13.04.2006. He would contend that though the amount of compensation was paid to the land outstees including the petitioner, but employment has not been provided. He would submit that the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected by the SECL authorities vide order date 06.02.2008. He would pray to quash the said order dated 06.02.2008. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4 would submit that to claim employment, possession over the property for more than 20 years from the date of acquisition was mandatory requirement, whereas, in the present case, the petitioner was in possession of property for period of 05 years, 09 months and therefore, according to the Notification dated 19.12.2003, Clause (4), the petitioner was not found eligible for employment. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents. 5. The petitioner has not been placed any documents to establish the fact that he was in possession of acquired property for more than 20 years. 3 The Notification dated 19.12.2003 as referred in order impugned would show that to claim employment, possession over the property for more than 20 years was mandatory requirement, but in the present case, the petitioner was in possession of the property for period of 05 years, 09 months, therefore, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. The claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 06.02.2008 and the petitioner has filed this petition on 28.01.2022 and in Para-7 of the writ petition, it is stated that there is no delay in filing the instant petition. The petitioner has claimed employment for his brother-in-law (damad) who according to the policy is not eligible to claim employment and that was an additional reason for rejection of his claim. 6. Considering the above discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the SECL authorities. 7. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti