1 CGHC010336002018 2026:CGHC:36234 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7015 of 2018 1 - Vijay Kumar Rajwade S/o Late Shri Ratan Sai Rajwade Aged About 22 Years R/o School Dafai Korea Colliery ,post -Korea Colliery ,police Station Chirmiri District Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through The Chairman -Cum Managing Director ,south Eastern Coalfields Limited Seepat Raod Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The General Manager South Eastern Coalfieds Limited ,chirmiri Area, District Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Area Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited ,north Chirmiri Domanhil Group ,post Office Sonwani Colliery Distrtict Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - The Assistant Manager (Personnel ) South Eastern Coalfields Limited ,north Chirmiri Domanhil Group ,post Office Sonwani Colliery Distrtict Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s):- “The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for it's kind perusal; 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to take final decision upon the claim of the -2- petitioner for dependent employment in place of his mother- Late Smt. Urmila Bai; 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the mother of the petitioner, Smt. Urmila Bai, who was working on the post of General Mazdoor Category-1 under the respondent authorities, died in harness on 25.08.2004. He would further submit that initially, an application for grant of dependent employment was submitted by Ku. Gita Rajwade (sister of the petitioner) on 08.01.2005. Thereafter, Smt. Fulmati Rajwade also preferred an application for dependent employment and payment of amount of gratuity and CMPF. She also raised an objection on application moved by Ku. Gita Rajwade. Looking to the dispute among the family members of the deceased employee, the respondent authorities advised them to get the matter adjudicated by the competent Court. He would contend that thereafter, Civil Suit No.10-A/2011 was filed on 25.07.2007, which was disposed of on the basis of compromise vide order dated 20.07.2015. He would further contend that thereafter, the petitioner applied for dependent employment on 11.06.2016 and said application was rejected on 25.07.2016. It is submitted by Mr. Sharma that another application was moved by the petitioner on 13.08.2016, which was rejected by the respondent authorities on 27.08.2016. Mr. Sharma would submit that subsequently, a detailed representation explaining the delay in filing the application for dependent employment was moved by the petitioner before the respondent 3 authorities on 03.03.2017 and, in turn, the petitioner was called along with the relevant documents vide letter dated 14.06.2017. He would contend that though the petitioner submitted all the documents with the respondent authorities but till date, no decision has been taken. He would argue that a direction may be issued to the authority concerned to decide the claim of the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Bajpai, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sharma. He would submit that the applications moved by the petitioner for grant of dependent employment have already been rejected by the respondent authorities. He would further submit that the third application claiming similar relief was not maintainable at all. He would contend that the petitioner suppressed the fact of rejection of the earlier applications before the respondent authorities. He would further contend that this petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner’s mother, Smt. Urmila Bai, died in harness on 25.08.2004. The petitioner’s sister initially applied for dependent employment on 08.01.2005, followed by a dispute among the family members. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for dependent employment on 11.06.2016 and the said application was rejected on 25.07.2016. Thereafter, a second application was moved by the petitioner on 13.08.2016, which was rejected by the respondent authorities on 27.08.2016. Third application was moved by the petitioner explaining delay on 03.03.2017 and in turn, the respondent authorities directed the petitioner to submit relevant documents vide letter dated 14.06.2017. -4- The petitioner has already submitted all the documents with the respondent authorities. 6. Having considered the fact that pursuant to the direction issued by the respondent authorities, the petitioner has already submitted relevant documents, the respondent authorities are under an obligation to decide the claim of the petitioner. Thus, the authority concerned is directed to decide the pending claim of the petitioner with regard to dependent employment within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha