1 2026:CGHC:23774 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7673 of 2022 * - Dhaneshwar Mandal S/o Late Biro Mandal Aged About 53 Years Working On The Post Of Deg. PCSA (Mining Sirdar), Jambad OCP, Kajora Area, ECL, District Burdwan, West Bengal ... Petitioner Versus 1 - SECL Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director Headquarter At Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director (Personnel) SECL, Headquarter At Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - General Manager SECL, Johila Area, P.S. Naurojabad, District Umaria Madhya Pradesh 4 - General Manager SECL Bhatgaon Area, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15/06/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to call the entire records pertaining to this case. 10.2 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ in the nature of certiorari/prohibition/mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to decide and pay the claim of Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.06.16 10:58:05 +0530 2 entire payment of allowances/benefits falls under various heads. 10.3 Hon’ble court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide the representations of the petitioner pertaining to claim of his entire payment of allowances/benefits under various heads, in accordance with law supported with valid and lawful reasons, within stipulated time period, and further to pass any other relief(s) which it deems fit along with cost of the petition in the interest of justice.” 2. Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not been paid Travelling and Dearness Allowances (TA and DA) according to prevailing rules. He would submit that WPS No. 5698/2016 was filed by the petitioner wherein liberty was granted to the petitioner to prefer a representation before the respondents and the respondents were directed to decide it strictly in accordance with law. He would submit that one more action was taken, a Contempt Case No. 920/2019 was filed which was dismissed vide order dated 11.11.2019. Mr. Shukla would submit that though the petitioner made representation pursuant to order dated 19.10.2016, but till date that representation has not been considered and decided. He would pray for a direction to the respondent authorities to decide pending representation. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that pursuant to order dated 19.10.2016, the petitioner failed to make a representation before the respondent authorities and therefore, no order has been passed. He would further submit that there is no such provision in the standing order or the rules of the department to make payment of TA and DA to 3 its employees. He would submit that the writ petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Perusal of the documents annexed alongwith the petition would show that the petitioner has made representation before the respondent authorities, but TA and DA bills submitted, have not been placed on record. 6. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation before the respondent authorities within a period of 30 days and if such a representation is made, the respondent authorities are directed to decide it expeditiously preferably within a period of 90 days strictly in accordance with rules. 7. With the aforesaid direction(s) / observation(s), the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti