1 2026:CGHC:4620 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 925 of 2026 1 - Soniya Wd/o Late Sheocharan @ Shivcharan Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Pipariya, Post- Kathautiya, P.S.- Manendragarh, Tahsil- Manendragarh, District- Koriya, C.G. 2 - Manoj Kumar @ Ravi S/o Late Sheocharan @ Shivcharan Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Pipariya, Post- Kathautiya, P.S.- Manendragarh, Tahsil- Manendragarh, District- Koriya, C.G. 3 - Anuj Kumar S/o Late Sheocharan @ Shivcharan Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Pipariya, Post- Kathautiya, P.S.- Manendragarh, Tahsil- Manendragarh, District- Koriya, C.G. 4 - Arjun Kumar Ravi S/o Late Sheocharan @ Shivcharan Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Pipariya, Post- Kathautiya, P.S.- Manendragarh, Tahsil- Manendragarh, District- Koriya, C.G. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, West Chirmiri, District- Koriya, C.G. 3 - The Personnel Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kurasiya, Post- Chirmiri, District- Koriya, C.G. 4 - The Commissioner Office Of Coal Mines Provident Fund, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, C.G. 5 - Assistant Commissioner Office Of Coal Mines Provident Fund Gupteshwar, Shakti Nagar Jabalpur, M.P. --- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioners : Ms. Chetana Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No. 4 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Ravi Ranjan Sinha, Advocate BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.30 10:41:23 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 28/01/2026 1. Petitioners have filled this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 Hon’ble Court may be kind and gracious enough to call for the records of the case from the respondents. 10.2 Hon’ble Court may be kind be pleased to direct the respondent's authority to release the dues of provident fund, gratuity and Family Pension along with its arrears with interest of 12% pa applicable from year 2006 by issuance of writ of mandamus or any other writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions to consider all the consequential benefits from the date of initial date of appointment of the husband of the petitioner No.1. 10.3 Any other relief/relief’s which Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that husband of petitioner No.1 was an employee of respondents No.1 to 3, who was terminated from service vide order dated 18.07.2006. Husband of petitioner earlier filed writ petition seeking dues from service, which he has discharged by way of filing writ petition bearing WPS No.5320 of 2022, however, during pendency of the writ petition, employee Sheocharan @ Shivcharan died, therefore, writ petition was disposed of. Till date, respondents have not disbursed the service benefits of deceased employee for which he was entitled during lifetime and now thereafter petitioners, being legal heirs. 3 3. Learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 would submit that according to his instructions, provident fund has already been disbursed to deceased employee of 2,61,348/- on 21.03.2009 in his account. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 would submit that he may be granted time to seek instruction and to file reply. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in earlier round of litigation, i.e. writ petition filed by petitioner bearing WPS No.5320 of 2022, respondents No.1 to 3 have filed reply and specifically pleaded therein that “proposal for payment of gratuity has also been forwarded before the competent authority for releasing of the said amount and expected to release the same shortly after confirmation.” He contended that till date according to the petitioners, the amount of gratuity is also not disbursed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, that the deceased employee was terminated, however, certain benefits from service discharged by deceased employee is still pending due against respondents No.1 to 3, in the aforementioned facts of the case, instead of keeping this petition pending seeking reply from respondents, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition permitting petitioner to submit fresh representation claiming specifically the unpaid dues to them by respondents No.1 to 3. In the event, petitioners submit such representation, respondents No.1 to 3 shall consider and take decision on the same, in accordance with law, 4 expeditiously preferably within further period of two months from the date of receipt of representation. 8. With the aforesaid observation and directions, this writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram