1 2026:CGHC:18027 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4703 of 2021 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) Through its Chairman-Cum Managing Director, Office At Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - South Eastern Coalfield Ltd. Through Its General Manager SECL, Kusmunda Colliery, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Ayog Through Its Chairperson/Chairman Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Ayog, Gayatri Bhawan, 13 Jal Vihar Colony Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Nirupa Bai D/o Shri Dhajaram R/o Village Barkuta 3 - Smt. Nilima D/o Shri Roop Singh R/o Village – Barkuta, 4 - Indu Bai Kanwar D/o Intwar Singh R/o Village Barkuta. 5 - Smt. Vibhuti Bhawna D/o Surajbhan R/o Village Barkuta SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.04.22 19:01:43 +0530 2 (The address of the respondent no.2 to 5 C/o Nirupa Bai, Sanjay Rathore H.No.589, Main Road, Jail Gaon, Near Sahu Clinic, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. HB Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 21/04/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners seeks the following reliefs : 10.1 This Hon'ble court be pleased to call for the entire record in respect of proceedings pending before the Respondent No.1. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside vide proceeding dated 03.10.2020, 18/19.08.2021 and 03.09.2021 initiated by the Respondent No.1 on a complaint of the respondent no. 2 to 5 in respect of non grant of employment particularly when subsequently the employment has already been given to the respondents no. 2 to 5 and be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 to drop/close the case against the petitioner pending before it. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court be pleased to further hold that there is no need to proceed with the complaint of the respondent no. 1 to 5 particularly 3 when the dispute has already been redressed between the petitioner and the private respondents. 10.4 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court. 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners, are that a total of 163.27 acres of Mining Right of Village Barkuta was acquired for the Kusmuda OCP, Kusmunda Area under the CBA Act, 1957, vide notification dated 9.11.1978. Subsequently, Surface Rights were awarded on 22.3.1993, under the MPLRC, 1959, affecting 186 landowners. Under prevailing rehabilitation policy, dependent daughters of the Project Affected Persons were eligible for appointment. On 26.8.2020, respondent 2 to 5 filed a complaint before the CG Rajya Mahila Aayog {henceforth “Aayog”} (respondent No.1)) alleging denial in the grant of employment. Based on this, respondent No.1 registered a case and issued notices to the SECL. Upon verification of the requisite documents, the competent authority of SECL issued a sanction order on 17.7.2021. Consequently, the appointment orders dated 14.9.2021 were issued by the Area Personnel Manager. The private respondents joined their respective duties and their grievances stand redressed. After the resolution of the dispute, respondents 2 to 5 submitted applications before the Aayog, seeking withdrawal of the complaint and the closure of the proceedings, stating that they longer have any grievances against the petitioners. Despite the settlement of the dispute and the 4 complainants desire to withdraw the complaint, respondent No.1 did not close the proceedings. Instead it continues to pass orders requiring the unnecessary personal appearance of the SECL Headquarters officers. Hence, this Petition. 3. Mr. HB Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned proceedings and order initiated/passed by the Aayog are palpably illegal, as the Aayog lacks the statutory authority to pass such directives. He submits that upon receiving a complaint, the Aayog registered a case and issued notices to the SECL and its authorities, demanding their personal appearance and an explanation regarding non-grant of employment, which according to the petitioners falls entirely outside the jurisdiction of the Aayog. He further submits that the Aayog possesses only recommendatory powers, limited to receiving complaints and forwarding them to the appropriate authorities for consideration. However, the Aayog exceeded its powers, by initiating proceedings and passing orders, which are unsustainable in law and therefore, the same are liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the impugned notice does not contain any directions as argued by learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that the Aayog, acting upon a complaint, has only issued notices to the concerned authorities to seek their response. As such, the challenge is hasty. He submits that the SECL authorities ought to have appeared before the Aayog and filed their reply 5 instead of approaching this Court by filing this petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 6. Admittedly, the impugned proceedings and the resultant orders passed by the Aayog, pertain to grant of employment and service- related matters in lieu of land acquisition for the complainants. The dispute concerning terms of service or the right to employment cannot be adjudicated or agitated before the Aayog, which has no jurisdiction to decide such matters. 7. Furthermore, it is outside the domain of the Aayog to summon the officers concerned in matters regarding grant of service in lieu of acquisition of land. The impugned orders passed by the Aayog are complete dereliction of the powers conferred under Section 10 of the State Women’s Commission Act, 1995. As per the Procedure for Dealing with Complaints (para 2, sub-para 3), if an issue raised relates to service matters not involving any deprivation of women’s rights, the Aayog cannot take cognizance of it. As such, the impugned orders passed by the Aayog as well as the proceedings initiated by it are contrary to the said provisions. 8. At this stage, Mr. HB Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that even otherwise, the employment has already been provided to the concerned complainants, thus, no grievance raised in the complaint(s) remains to be redressed. Moreover, since the complainants have received employment and 6 moved an application to withdraw their complaint, there remains nothing further for adjudication in the matter. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders as also the impugned proceedings of the Aayog are liable to be and are hereby quashed. 10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay