1 2026:CGHC:22439 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5374 of 2022 • Sarojani Bai Rathore D/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Rathore Aged About 56 Years W/o Lakhanlal Rathore, R/o Village - Bhatora (Naraibodh), Post - Bhilaibazar, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilapur (C.G.) 2. Director (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area, District - Korba (C.G.) 4. General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Gevra Area, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13/05/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 13.05.2022 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent no.4. 10.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of employment as per her nomination in lieu of his land acquired by the respondents. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.05.14 17:07:25 +0530 2 10.4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 2. The Central Government had initiated land acquisition proceedings in the year 2009 for extension of Gevra Project of the respondent/SECL, Korba. The land of the petitioner bearing survey No.2/4, admeasuring 0.06 acres (0.024 hectare) of village Naraibodh, Tehsil-Katghora, Distt-Korba, along with other lands were acquired by the Government of India, Ministry of Energy, Department of Coal, New Delhi, under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act 1957 (in short C.B.A. Act, 1957). In this regard, a notification under Section 4 of the C.B.A. Act, 1957 was issued on 29.01.2009 and notification under Section 7 of the C.B.A. Act, 1957 was issued on 29.09.2009 and notification under Section 9(i) of the C.B.A. Act, 1957 was issued on 03.06.2010 by the Central Government and published in the official Gazette. It was agreed by the SECL to provide employment to one of the family members of each land oustee as per the Rehabilitation Policy. Subsequently, employment was offered according to the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012 and not according to the Policy of State, which was prevalent at the time of land acquisition. According to the Policy of 2012, the land oustees having land less than 2 acres would not be entitled to get employment. The application/representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the SECL authorities. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to provide employment according to the Rehabilitation Policy of State, which was in existence at the time of land acquisition. There is a prayer by the petitioner to quash the order passed by the SECL authorities, whereby her claim has been rejected. 3 3. Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra. He would contend that a similar issue was raised in the matter of Pyarelal vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Others and connected matters passed in WPC No 3076 of 2016, dated 11-09-2017, and the coordinate bench of this Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for rehabilitation / employment strictly in accordance with the Policy on the date of acquisition of their lands within 45 days. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the SECL would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner has no right to claim employment according to the Rehabilitation Policy of State. He would submit that under the prevailing policy, the District Level Rehabilitation Committee (DRRC) has been constituted and in its meeting dated 12.12.2010 it was observed that opportunities of providing employment were more under Rehabilitation & Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited (CIL) as compared to State Policy. He would further submit that in the present case, total 230 employments were offered against the acquisition of 460.41 acres of tenancy land in village Naraibodh in descending order and as per the same, list was prepared in which cut off point was up to Sr. No. 213 and land owner having land over and above 0.51 acre were only eligible for employment. He would also submit that the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012, provides that if any of the land oustee has less than 2 acres of land, he would not be entitled to get employment. He would further contend that it would not be possible for the SECL to provide employment to each and every affected family. He would also contend that the full and final compensation has already 4 been paid to the land oustees. He would argue that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. In the matter of Pyarelal (supra), a similar issue was raised and the coordinate bench in Para-65 of its judgment directed the SECL to provide employment strictly in accordance with the Rehabilitation Policy applicable on the date of acquisitions of land within 45 days. 7. In the present case, the proceedings with regard to land acquisition were initiated in the year 2009 and notification under Section 9 C.B.A. Act, 1957 was issued on 03.06.2010 and at that time, the Rehabilitation Policy of State was in force. The Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012 was floated in the year 2012 and certainly, it would not attract the case of the petitioner. 8. In the matter of Pyarelal (supra), the coordinate bench of this Court in Para-65 held as under:- “65. Right of the land losers to get employment as per the rehabilitation policy is extremely important right and that has to be considered in accordance with law and in accordance with the policy in force on the date of acquisition of their land and subsequent change in policy will not take away their accrued right, if any, that has accrued to them by acquisition of their lands. Thus, the benefit of rehabilitation and employment to land oustee is logical corollary of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and denial of employment is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India as well as Article 21. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for rehabilitation / employment strictly in accordance with the policy applicable on the date of acquisition of their land i.e. the date of acquisition and such consideration should be made by SECL within 45 days from the date of production of a copy of this order.” 9. A specific query was made from the counsel appearing for SECL as to whether 5 the order passed in the matter of Pyarelal (supra) has been assailed before the Superior Court or not. The counsel fairly submitted that the order dated 11.09.2017 has not been challenged and thus, it attained finality. 10. In the matter of Pyarelal (supra), it is categorically observed that the benefit of rehabilitation and employment to land oustee is logical corollary of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and denial of employment is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India as well as Article 21 and the Policy applicable on the date of acquisition of the land would be applicable, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the respondent authorities should consider the claim of the petitioners strictly in light of the observations made in the matter of Pyarelal (supra). The orders impugned dated 13.05.2022 passed against the petitioner by the SECL is hereby quashed. The SECL/respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Consequently, the instant petition is disposed of. No Cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant