1 2026:CGHC:20467 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9284 of 2022 1 - Ku. Komal Khatik @ Komal Bagoriya D/o Late Ratan Kumar Khatik Aged About 25 Years R/o Javahar Colony, Near Bus Stand Ramgarh Road, Mauha, Post And Tehsil Mauha, District : Dausa *, Rajasthan 2 - Smt. Vidhadevi @ Vidhyadevi Wd/o Late Ratan Kumar Khatik Aged About 48 Years R/o Javahar Colony, Near Bus Stand Ramgarh Road, Mauha, Post And Tehsil Mauha, District : Dausa *, Rajasthan ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Chairman/ Managing Director S.E.C.L. Vasant Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief General Manager S.E.C.L. Chirmiri Area Post Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgava, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy The Chairman/ Managing And Other S.E.C.L. Chirmiri Area N.C.P.H. Colliery Post Haldibadi, Tahsil Khandgavan, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Shri Karan Kumar Baharani, Advocate. For Respondents : Shri Pankaj Singh, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board NIRMALA RAO 2 01.05.2026 1) The claim of the petitioner for grant of dependent employment under the respondents was rejected on 8.9.2021 and subsequently on 2.5.2022. 2) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “A. The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioners from the respondent authorities for its kind perusal. B. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction to the respondent to give authorities appointment to the petitioner no.1. compassionate C. Any other relief may kindly be pleased granted as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. D. Cost of the petition.” 3) A perusal of the relief sought for by the petitioner in the present petition, it is quite vivid that the petitioner has not challenged the orders whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of dependent employment was rejected by the respondent authorities, therefore, in my opinion, this petition is not maintainable and is accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a better petition, if so advised. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi