Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 36409 (CHH)

VINOD DAS v. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

WPS/6861/2026 · 2026-09-20

Shri Bibhu Datta Guru

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 / 2 CGHC010358632026 2026:CGHC:41007 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6861 of 2026 1 - Vinod Das S/o Late Umendra Das Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Vijay Nagar, Dipka, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba C. G. Pin 495452. Aadhaar No. 8790 5920 3887. 2 - Ramesh Das S/o Late Shri Umendra Das Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Vijay Nagar Dipka, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba C. G. Pin 495452.---- Aadhaar No. 8219 4623 8814. 3 - Suresh Das S/o Late Umendra Das Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Vijay Nagar Dipka, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba C. G. Pin 495452. ------Aadhaar No. 4371 7758 3426. ... Petitioners versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman Cum- Managing Director, S E C L Headquarters, Seepat Road, Bilaspur C. G. Pin No. 495006. 2 - The General Manager Human Resources / Personnel, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, S E C L Headquarters Seepat Road, Bilaspur C. G. Pin No. 495006. 3 - The Area General Manager Central Excavation Workshop / Concerned Area South Eastern Coalfields Limited Gevra, District Korba C. G. Pin 495452 4 - The Chief Personnel Officer, South Eastern Coalfields Limited S E C L Headquarters Seepat Road, Bilaspur C. G. Pin 495006. 5 - The Chief Vigilance Officer South Eastern Coalfields Limited S E C L Headquarters Seepat Road, Bilaspur C. G. Pin 495006. 6 - Pramod Das S/o Late Umendra Das Aged About 35 Years R/o Jyoti Nagar Dipka, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba C. G. Pin 495452. ... Respondents ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.09.22 10:32:13 +0530 2 / 2 For Petitioners : None For Respondents : Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 21/09/2026 1. None appeared on behalf of the petitioners when the matter was called once. Even in the second call none appears nor any representation has been made on behalf of the petitioners. 2. In such eventuality, this Court is left with no other option except to dismiss the writ petition for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu