1 2026:CGHC:3266 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 250 of 2026 Anju Mahant D/o Ghanshyam Das Aged About 35 Years R/o 90, Bichbasti, Naraibodh, Ps - Kusmunda, Tehsil - Dipka, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Gevra Area, District - Korba (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.) 4 - Tehsildar Dipka, District - Korba (C.G.) 5 - Naib Tehsildar Dipka, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Mahi Pandey, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, Advocate For Respondents 3 to 5/State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 20.01.2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following relief(s):- 10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide employment to the petitioner in lieu of the acquired land as per the prevailing policy. 10.3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2026.01.21 17:55:08 +0530 2 the respondent No.2 to decide the application of the petitioner and grant employment in lieu of land acquired. 10.4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a land oustee and against her land acquired by the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), compensation has been granted, but employment has not been granted as per the rehabilitation policy. She next submits that representation dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure-P/1) has been filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2, however the same has not been decided yet. She further submits that this petition may be disposed of directing respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner as per the rehabilitation policy, within a period specified by this Court. 3. In reply, learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 submits that the representation filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided as per the applicable law/rules/guidelines/policy at the earliest. 4. Having considered the limited prayer of the petitioner, this petition is disposed of directing respondents No.2 to decide the representation dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure-P/1) filed by the petitioner as per the rehabilitation policy and other applicable rules in accordance with law at the earliest preferably within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. With aforesaid direction and observation, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini