1 2026:CGHC:24080 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2876 of 2023 1 - Manoj Kumar Thakur S/o Late Shivnandan Thakur Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No.12, Imlipara, Near Kalibadi, Bhatgaon Area, Post Bhatgaon, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman Cum Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Director (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - General Manager Bhatgaon Area, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Post Bhatgaon, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Area Personeel Manager Bhatgaon Area, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Post Bhatgaon, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS} For Petitioner : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents : Mrs. Astha Shukla, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 16/06/2026 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is hearing finally. 2 2. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :- 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 hold that the petitioner is entitled for all the service benefits as per the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement from the date the father of petitioner made initial application for grant of benefit under clause 9.4.0 of NCWA i.e. 07.01.2008. 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 service benefits including salary and notional seniority, promotion from the date of his entitlement alongwith interest. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner namely, Late Shivnandan Thakur was medically disabled, despite that petitioner’s application for sending him before Medical Board, for declaring him unfit in order to avail benefits for which he is entitled under National Coal Wage Agreement, was not allowed. Subsequently, it was referred before the Apex Medical Board on 09.06.2011, in which, a report was submitted by the said Medical Board on 12.06.2010 that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit under clause 9.4.0 of the National Coal Agreement (NCWA). Ultimately, father of the petitioner filed writ petition bearing WPS No. 3441 of 2011, which was allowed in his favour vide order dated 27.10.2018. Against which, the writ appeal filed by respondents-SECL was also dismissed. Subsequently, respondents -SECL filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court against the order passed in the writ appeal, which was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then also, the petitioner was deprived from providing 3 dependent employment, as during pending of the writ petition, father of the petitioner had died. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that representation was filed by the petitioner for providing him dependent employment, but he was not provided the same and ultimately the petitioner was appointed as General Mazdoor (Trainee) on 20.12.2021. It is next contended that despite passing order by Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Apex Court, the petitioner was not provided dependent employment for several years, hence, he submits that either service benefits as per provisions contained in National Coal Wage Agreement be provided to the petitioner or compensation may be granted to him, for keeping him away for several years from getting employment. 5. Respondents have filed their reply. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/SECL while referring to its reply would submit that since the petitioner was not in employment with the respondents-SECL prior to 20.12.2021, therefore, he cannot be granted provided any service benefits i.e. salary, notional seniority, etc. and he is entitled for all service benefits once he is appointed and is born in the cadre. She further submits that SLP preferred by respondents -SECL was dismissed by the Apex Court on 8.7.2019 in Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. (s). 14175 of 2019, thereafter, representation filed by the petitioner was placed before 96th meeting of Committee of functional Directors, which in its meeting dated 8.12.2021 approved the proposal for grant of dependent employment to the petitioner, and thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as General Mazdoor (Trainee) on 20.12.2021. She further submits that since available legal remedy was availed by respondents and some legal formalities were required to be fulfilled, therefore, the delay occurred, which does not give any right to the petitioner to claim compensation. Hence, she submits that this petition may be dismissed at 4 the motion stage itself. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The petitioner has claimed service benefit as per the provisions contained in National Coal Wage Agreement effective from the date of the initial application made by his father for grant of service benefit under Clause 9.4.0 of the NCWA i.e. 7.1.2008, but the petitioner was neither on the employment on that date nor any order was passed in his / his father's favour. Though, writ petition initially filed by father of father was allowed, which was upheld in Writ Appeal as well as SLP preferred by respondents-SECL before the Apex Court, thereafter, after lapse of more than two years, he was provided dependent employment, but as has been mentioned by the Respondents-SECL that after dismissal of SLP, case of the petitioner was placed before 96th meeting of Committee of functional Directors, which, in its meeting dated 8.12.2021 approved the proposal for grant of dependent employment to the petitioner. Aforesaid facts show that undisputedly delay occurred in providing dependent employment to the petitioner, but the same is occurred because the respondents had pursued the legal recourse. 8. Since the petitioner has ultimately been provided dependent employment on 20.12.2021 by the respondents-SECL, therefore, in view of above, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief sought for by the petitioner or any compensation. Hence, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. No order as to costs. 9. Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.06.22 11:07:31 +0530 5