1 2026:CGHC:3498 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 665 of 2026 1 - Suraj Kumar Naik S/o Late Banshi Nayak Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 06, Purvi Nepal Gate, Charcha, P.S. Charcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur Distt. Koria (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Director, Head Office Seepat Road, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - General Manager (E And A) Secl Seepat Road, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Chief General Manager Secl, Baikunthpur Area, Baikunthpur Distt. Korea (C.G.) 4 - Area Personnel Manager Secl, Baikunthpur Area, Baikunthpur Distt. Korea (C.G.) 5 - Sub-Area Manager Secl, Sub Area Charcha, Distt. Korea (C.G.) 6 - Dy. Personnel Manager Secl, Sub Area Charcha, Distt. Korea (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. B.L. Dembra, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 21/0 1/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate direction, directing the 2 respondent authorities to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner on merits and conditional job be provided against the death of the her son namely Amar Lal Naik within stipulated time as this Hon’ble Court deems fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate direction, directing the respondent authorities to take decision on the representations made by the petitioner on its own merits instead of keeping pending for such a long period. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the brother of deceased namely, Amarlal Nayak who was an employee of the respondents and was working as General Mazdoor. He died in harness on 01.11.2021. After demise of his brother, petitioner has submitted an application for dependent employment before the respondent authorities, however, till date, no decision has been taken. He contended that initially an objection was raised by one Pooja Parida, claiming herself to be the wife of the deceased. However, when his claim was not acceded to, she filed an application for grant of succession certificate which came to be dismissed against which, appeal was also preferred and the same also came to be dismissed and as such, now the claim of Pooja Parida has already been settled. The respondents till date, have not taken decision on the application for grant of dependent employment to the petitioner and therefore, direction be issued to the respondents to take decision on the application of dependent employment within specified time. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent though opposes the submission, however, he submits that as the petitioner is only seeking a direction to take decision on the application submitted by him, he is having no objection to the limited prayer. If the representation is pending consideration, it will be considered in accordance with law. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed along with the writ petition. 5. On due consideration of the submission of counsel for the respective parties, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of grievance raised by the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of at this stage, with a direction to the Respondents to take decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner for grant of dependent employment in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a further period of 02 months from the date of receipt of the order. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY Date: 2026.01.27 17:45:08 +0530