1 2026:CGHC:1731 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 971 of 2019 Dilharan Rathore S/o Balram Rathore Aged About 28 Years R/o Patharripara, Ganesh Chowk, Ward No. 17, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman And Managing Director, Head Office Basant Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Generam Manager S. E. C. L. Kusmunda, Gevra Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kishore Dewangan S/o Balram Dewangan Aged About 55 Years Posted At Gevra Project, Deepka, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. Satish Gupta, Advocate HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.01.13 10:41:02 +0530 2 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 12.01.2026 1. This is the second round of litigation. In the first round of litigation, petitioner herein preferred WPS/1788/2018 in which this Court, vide order dated 27/02/2018 (Annexure P/7), directed the respondents No. 1 and 2/SECL to verify the claim of the petitioner for grant of employment under the rehabilitation scheme in lieu of acquisition of his father’s land. 2. By the impugned order dated 07/04/2018 (Annexure P/1), the claim of the petitioner has been verified and rejected holding that land bearing Khasra No. 927/3 area 0.26 acre situated at Village Kosmanda has been found to be owned by one Balraam S/o Darashram and his son namely Kishore Kumar (respondent No. 3 herein) has already been given appointment by order dated 23/01/1999. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a criminal case was registered against respondent No. 3 on the complaint filed by the petitioner, however, he was acquitted vide order dated 23/02/2018 (Annexure P/8) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Class-I, Katghora and feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has already 3 filed an appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora which is still pending consideration. 4. Be that as it may, since the appointment has been granted by the respondents No. 1 and 2/SECL by order dated 23/01/1999 i.e. six years prior to the date of filing complaint by the petitioner and since no duly constituted writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against that appointment order, therefore, it has become final, as such, dismissal of the representation filed by the petitioner by the respondents No. 1 and 2/SECL is in accordance with law. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at admission stage. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet