1 2026:CGHC:2107-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 931 of 2025 Pramod Kumar Kanwar (Paikara) S/o Sundar Singh Kanwar Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Beltikari, Post Deepka, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman- Cum- Managing Director, Head Office, Basant Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Chief General Manager S.E.C.L. Gevra Area Korba, District Korba, C.G. 3 - Chief General Manager S.E.C.L. Dipka Area Korba, District Korba C.G. 4 - Staff Officer (Land Revenue) South Eastern Coalfields Limited Gevra Area, Korba, District Korba C.G. 5 - Collector Korba, District Korba C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent 1 to 4/SECL : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent No.5/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.01.14 17:59:40 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14.01.2026 1. Heard Mr.Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4/SECL and Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5/State on I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 59 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. This writ appeal is presented against the order dated 22.07.2025 (Pramod Kumar Kanwar (Paikara) vs. South Eastern Coalfields LImited and others) passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 8296 of 2018, whereby, the writ petition filed by appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 5. The facts of the case are that land bearing Khasra No. 768/4 ad- measuring 0.32 acre belonging to the appellant situated at Village-Beltikari, Tehsil-Katghora, District-Korba was acquired by 3 the respondent authorities in the year 1981-82 and the appellant has claimed employment in lieu of land acquisition. It is further pleaded that as per policy of State Government dated 25.09.1991, the appellant is entitled to get employment. It is also pleaded that other family members have given their no objection in his favor. It is stated that the representation was made by the appellant pursuant to order passed by this Court in WPS No. 4716 of 2018 but the representation was rejected vide order dated 23.07.2018 on the ground that no application was moved by the appellant within prescribed period and present application has been moved at belated stage. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed WPS No.8296 of 2018, whereby, the petition filed by the appellant herein / writ petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 22.07.2025. Hence, this writ appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge erred in law and on facts in dismissing the writ petition solely on the ground of delay and laches, without appreciating that the appellant’s claim for employment in lieu of acquired land is a continuing and recurring cause of action, which subsists so long as the statutory and policy-based benefit is denied. The appellant’s family land was acquired under the Rehabilitation and Employment Policy, which casts a continuing obligation on SECL to provide employment to one eligible member of the displaced family. Rejection of the claim on technical grounds of delay defeats the beneficial and welfare-oriented object of the policy. He 4 further submits that the impugned order further overlooks the fact that SECL, in identical circumstances, by a conscious administrative decision dated 22.01.2011, resolved to grant employment to land oustees who were not earlier accommodated, thereby creating a legitimate expectation in favour of the petitioner. The denial of employment to the appellant, while granting the same benefit to similarly situated persons including individuals born after the award as recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 250/2025 (arising out of W.P. (S) No. 6168 of 2019, Rahul Jaiswal vs. Coal India Ltd. and others) amounts to arbitrary discrimination and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He also submits that the learned Single Judge also failed to consider that the appellant’s grandfather was illiterate and unaware of the rehabilitation benefits, and the delay, if any, was bona fide, with the petitioner continuously pursuing his claim upon gaining knowledge of the policy and subsequent developments. The rejection order passed by SECL is non-speaking and mechanical, without examining the appellant’s eligibility under the policy, and the dismissal of the review petition without considering binding precedents reflects non-application of mind. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside / quashed by allowing the writ petition. He relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in WA No.250 of 2025 (Coal India Ltd and others v. Rahul Jiaswal), decided 5 on 17.04.2025. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that the land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1981–82, whereas the claim for employment in lieu of land was raised for the first time only in 2018, after an inordinate and unexplained delay of several decades. The learned Single Judge accepted the reasoning of respondent No. 3 that no claim was submitted within the stipulated period in respect of Khasra No. 768/4, Village Beltikari, and therefore the claim was barred by delay and laches, warranting no interference under writ jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge further held that in view of the long lapse of time and the reasons assigned in the rejection order, no case was made out for judicial interference, and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. 6 10. The reliance placed by the appellant on the decision of this Court in W.A. No. 250/2025 was misplaced, as the said case was based on distinct facts and circumstances, and was therefore held to be not applicable to the present case. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- S Sd/- Sd/-d/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu