1 2026:CGHC:21938 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2344 of 2026 1 - Irfan Ansari S/o Mumtaaj Ahmad, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Datima, P. S. Vishrampur Tahsil Surajpur District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Secl) Through Its Chairamn Cum Managing Director, Secl Headquarters, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bishrampur Area District Surajpur (C.G.) 3 - Assistant Manager (Survey) Secl, Land Revenue Department, Bishrampur Area District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/05/2026 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not considering the representation submitted by the petitioner seeking employment on account of acquisition of land bearing khasra No. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 135/11, Rakba 0.308 situated at village Laxmanpur for coal mining purposes by South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL). By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P/1) submitted by the petitioner within stipulated period of time. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to grant employment to the petitioner or an eligible member of his family in accordance with the M.P. Resettlement Policy, 1991 and amendment 1995. 10.3 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to passed in identical matter bearing Writ Petition (C) No.1638/2026 and other connected writ petition, the Hon'ble Court has passed order on 10.04.2026 and the case of petitioner is also identical to the said order. 10.4 Any other relief may kindly be pleased granted as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Cost of the petition.” 3 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner belongs to a family whose land bearing khasra No. 135/11, Rakba 0.308 situated at village Laxmanpur was acquired for coal mining purposes by South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL). According to the petitioner, at the time of acquisition of the land, the affected landowners including the petitioner were assured that one eligible member of each displaced family would be provided employment in accordance with the M.P. Resettlement Policy, 1991 and its amendment of 1995. For the said purpose, communications dated 20.03.2015 and 24.03.2015 were also issued by the respondent authorities. It is further the case of the petitioner that he has submitted all requisite documents and fulfills all eligibility conditions prescribed under the aforesaid policy for grant of employment. However, despite acquisition of the land and despite the assurances extended by the respondent authorities, the petitioner has not been provided employment till date. It has also been stated that the petitioner submitted representations along with reminder letters before the respondent authorities requesting consideration of his claim for employment, however, no action has been taken on the said representations till date. Hence, the present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to consideration for employment under the M.P. Resettlement Policy, 1991 as amended in 1995, being a displaced 4 person whose land has been acquired for mining purposes by SECL. It is contended that despite submission of all relevant documents and repeated representations before the authorities concerned, no decision has been taken by the respondents on the claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in identical matters, this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.1638/2026 and other connected petitions vide order dated 10.04.2026 has directed the authorities to consider and decide the representation of similarly situated petitioners within a stipulated time frame. It is therefore prayed that the present petition may also be disposed of in similar terms. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-SECL submits that if the petitioner submits a fresh representation along with all relevant documents before the competent authority, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the limited prayer made by the petitioner, without entering into the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with all relevant documents before the 5 competent authority within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In turn, upon receipt of such representation, the respondent authorities shall consider and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 90 days thereafter, strictly in accordance with law and after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner and the competent authority shall decide the representation independently in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge