1 / 3 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3566 of 2026 Abhishek Gosai Son Of Late Shri Babulal Gosai Aged About 32 Years R/o M- 729, Adarsh Nagar, Kusmunda, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Secl) Through Its Chairman-Cum- Managing Director, Secl, Headquarters, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - General Manager Secl, Kusmunda Area South Eastern Coalfields Limited, District Korba (C.G.) 3 - General Manager (Mining) Secl, Kusmunda Area, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 24.04.2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities, especially respondent No. 2 and 3, to consider the case of the petitioner and grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner in accordance with the applicable policy of SECL; 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 25.02.2022, 2 / 3 05.01.2025 and 05.01.2026 within a stipulated time frame, as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit and appropriate” 2. Counsel for petitioners submits that petitioner had submitted representation on 25.02.2022, 05.01.2025 and 05.01.2026 for dependent employment, which till date has not been considered and therefore, direction be issued to the authorities to take decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner at the earliest. 3. Counsel for the respondents submits that father of the petitioner was terminated from service on 28.03.2001 and therefore, petitioner is not having any right to make such an application for dependent employment after his death thereafter. She next contended that the representation which is stated to be paid by the petitioner is of the year 2025 i.e. 05.01.2025 and 05.01.2026 is almost about is delayed by more than 22 years and therefore also petitioner cannot be permitted to claim such reliefs. She next contended that on the pleadings made in the writ petition, it is not the case of petitioner that father of the petitioner died, however, the father of the petitioner is missing since 2004, but there is no order / decree of the competent Civil Court in this regard. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties. 5. The respondent is a Public Sector Company. If a person has submitted any application claiming some relief based on the service of his ancestor then it is the duty of the respondent company to take decision on the representation and to either allow or to reject assigning reasons by a speaking order. Though, counsel for respondent has raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition, however, it is not brought to the notice of this Court that the representation submitted by the petitioner was decided by the authorities. 3 / 3 6. In the aforementioned facts of the case, instead of keeping this writ petition pending seeking reply supported with the documents, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition, directing the respondents to pass orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner assigning reasons therein, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. 7. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Saurabh JUDGE