1 2026:CGHC:13669 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2065 of 2021 1 - Smt. Anita Pandey Wd/o Late Shri Raj Kumar Pandey, Aged About 52 Years R/o. Awas No. 223, Type-B, Sector-1, Balco Township, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Neha Gupta Nee Pandey, Wd/o Late Shri Shirish Gupta, Aged About 27 Years R/o. Awas No. 223, Type-B, Sector-1, Balco Township, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Assistant Manager (Pers. And Admn.), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Vishrampur, Sub Area Aamgaon, Post Office Vishrampur Colliery, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Kusum Tiwari, Aged About 40 Years R/o. Shivdhari Colony, Ambikapur, Post And P.S. Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Aditya Kumar Pandey, Aged About 13 Years Through His Natural Guardian Smt. Kusum Tiwari (Mother) R/o. Shivdhari Colony, Ambikapur, Post And P.S. Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Ku. Aradhya Pandey, Aged About 8 Years Through His Natural Guardian Smt. NIRMALA RAO 2 Kusum Tiwari (Mother) R/o. Shivdhari Colony, Ambikapur, Post And P.S. Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/s : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Kshitij Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Shri Satish Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents No.3 to 5 : Shri Vikram Dixit, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23 .03.2026 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction setting aside/quashing impugned communication no. BJ/43-A/19/107. Dtd.13.05.2019, (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent no. 2 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction directing the Respondent Company to provide the dependent employment to the Petitioners. 10.3 Any other relief(s), direction(s), which Hon'ble the Court deems fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that husband of petitioner No.1, namely Rajkumar Pandey died on 19.8.2017. He was working as a Foreman under the respondent authorities. She would contend that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and late Rajkumar Pandey was solemnized on 10.3.1992 and petitioner No.2 was born on 24.12.1992. She would contend that an application was moved by the petitioners for grant of dependent 3 employment on 27.12.2017 but till date, no decision has been taken. She would contend that the SECL authorities vide letter dated 13.5.2019 directed the petitioners to produce a succession certificate to decide the claim of the petitioner for dependent employment. She would submit that the respondent authorities ought to decide the claim of the petitioners according to policy for dependent employment. She would contend that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to decide the application moved by the petitioners expeditiously. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Satish Gupta, counsel appearing for respondents No.1 & 2 would oppose. He would submit that a dispute between the first wife and the second wife of the deceased employee is pending consideration before the Civil Court, Ambikapur. He would submit that the application moved by the petitioners shall be decided expeditiously after disposal of the said case. 4. Heard. 5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective Advocates, particularly, the fact that the application with regard to succession certificate is pending before the Competent Civil Court, this petition is disposed of at this stage, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to place on record the decision taken by the Civil Court in the succession case immediately after its disposal. Thereafter, the respondent authorities shall decide the application moved by the petitioners for dependent employment without delay. 4 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of. The petitioners would be at liberty to revive their prayer, if a new cause of action arises in the near future. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi