SMT. PRAMILA SURYAWANSHI v. THE SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED
WPS/3593/2021 · 2026-04-16
Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 6700 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 6700 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2026:CGHC:17558
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3593 of 2021 1 - Smt. Pramila Suryawanshi D/o Late Shri Milan Ram Suryawanshi Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Panora, Post Budgahan, Tahsil Balauda, Thana Balauda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner versus 1 - The South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through The General Manager, S. E. C. L. Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Senior Manager (Mining) S. E. C. L. Gevra Project, District Korba Chhattisgarh 3 - The General Manager S. E. C. L. Gevra Project, District Korba Chhattisgarh 4 - The Dy. General Manager S. E. C. L. Gevra Project, District Korba Chhattisgarh 5 - The Director (Personnel) S. E. C. L. Gevra Project, District Korba Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocate For respondents : Mr. Ravi Ranjan Sinha, Advocate along with Mr. Shubham Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board 17.04.2026
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : REKHA SINGH
-2-
“10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned dismissal order dated 01/07.01.2019 (Annexure P-10) passed by Respondent No.2, and letter/communication dated 20/21.12.2019 (Annexure P-13) passed by Respondent No.3. 10.3. That, this Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the dependent employment to the petitioner in place of her deceased father late Shri Milan Ram Suryawanshi. 10.4. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;
10.5. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to award the cost of petition.”
2. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner late Milan Ram Suryawanshi was appointed under the respondent-SECL on the post of Cableman in the SECL Gevra Project in the year 1992. He would further submit that a departmental inquiry was initiated against him based on frivolous allegation which conveniently led to an order of dismissal from service dated 01.01.2019.
He would contend that a departmental appeal was preferred by late Milan Ram Suryawanshi before the Appellate Authority but prior to disposal of said appeal, he died. He would further contend that the petitioner, who is legal representative of deceased employee late Milan Ram Suryawanshi may be permitted to prefer a fresh appeal before the respondent authorities in accordance with the Standing Order and
3 the Appellate Authority may be directed to decide it in an objective manner strictly in accordance with law. He would submit that as the petitioner does not have relevant documents, therefore, further direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to provide all necessary documents relating to departmental inquiry. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions. He would submit that the order of removal from service was passed way back on 01.01.2019 and the prescribed period of limitation to prefer a departmental appeal is already expired. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by Mr. Sharma, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to provide all necessary documents relating to departmental inquiry to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from today. The petitioner would be at liberty to prefer a duly constituted departmental appeal before the Appellate Authority within a further period of 30 days. The Appellate Authority shall decide appeal so preferred by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing within a further period of 90 days. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge Rekha