Smt. Revati Sahu Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

¶1

1

¶2

RAGHVENDRAJAT Digitallysigned byRAGHVENDRAJAT

¶3

2026:CGHC:21885

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 2248 of 2026

¶7

1 - Smt. Revati Sahu W/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 42 Years D/o Shri Lal Sai Sahu Resident Of Ward No.6 Sarsiwa P.S. And Tahsil Sarsiwa District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.).

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director Head Quarter Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶11

2 - The Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited Korba Area District- Korba (C.G.).

¶12

3 - The Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited Office Of The Colliery Manager Dhelwadih Mines Korba Area District- Korba (C.G.).

¶13

4 - Ramesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Krishna Kumar Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o A/73, Jawaharpara Near A.T.M. Dhelwadih Colliery Mines Tahsil Katghora District- Korba (C.G.).

¶14

5 - Smt Girja Bai Sahu W/o Late Krishna Kumar Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Dadarkhurd Road Kharmora Qtr No. 1578/22 Tahsil Korba District- Korba (C.G.).

¶15

2

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Uttam Patel, Advocate on behalf of
	Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel,
	Advocate.
For Respondent(s) No.	1 : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate.
to 3

¶18

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

11/05/2026

¶21

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶22

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly call for the entire record in relates to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly be pleased to issue writ or writs, order or orders to direct the Respondent authorities to decide the representation / application filed by the Petitioner vide Annexure P-1 (Colly), within stipulated period, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief, this Hon'ble Court. deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

¶23

Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent No. 4 and daughter-in-law of respondent No. 5, and has approached this Hon’ble Court alleging serious irregularities and fraud committed in relation to public employment and consequential service benefits obtained by the family members of respondent Nos. 4 and 5; it is submitted that the petitioner had lodged a detailed complaint before the competent

¶24

3

¶25

respondent authorities alleging that the father of respondent No. 4 and husband of respondent No. 5, namely Krishna Kumar Sahu, had secured government employment by playing fraud and misrepresenting his identity by portraying himself as Ram Kishun Sahu, and that after the death of the said Krishna Kumar Sahu, respondent No. 4 further obtained compassionate appointment on the basis of the said fraudulent service records, while respondent No. 5 has also been receiving pensionary benefits flowing therefrom; it is further submitted that pursuant to the complaint submitted by the petitioner, the concerned enquiry officer issued a memo dated 18.08.2025 calling upon the petitioner to furnish relevant documents and materials in support of her allegations regarding fraudulent procurement of service by Ramesh Kumar Sahu by falsely showing himself to be the son of Ram Kishun Sahu; thereafter, the petitioner duly submitted all the documents and materials as sought by the enquiry officer in support of her complaint, however, despite submission of all necessary records and despite lapse of considerable time, no effective action has been taken by the respondent authorities on the petitioner’s complaint and representation, nor has any final decision been communicated to her till date; being aggrieved by such prolonged inaction and failure on the part of the authorities to conduct proper enquiry and take appropriate action in accordance with law, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶26

4

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one late Ram Kishun Sahu was an employee of SECL who died while in service, and subsequent to his death, respondent No. 4 was granted compassionate appointment as a dependent of the deceased employee, while respondent No. 5 has also been receiving pensionary benefits as the widow of the said deceased employee; it is further submitted that the petitioner, being the legally wedded wife of respondent No. 4 and daughter-in-law of respondent No. 5, submitted a complaint before the authorities of SECL alleging that in fact the father of respondent No. 4, namely Krishna Kumar Sahu, had originally secured employment by fraudulently representing himself as Ram Kishun Sahu, and thereafter respondent No. 4 also obtained compassionate appointment by falsely claiming himself to be the son of late Ram Kishun Sahu, while respondent No. 5 has been receiving pension by portraying herself as the widow of the deceased employee; learned counsel contends that since the very foundation of the service records and identity of the deceased employee is alleged to be fraudulent and fabricated, the compassionate appointment granted to respondent No. 4 as well as the pensionary benefits extended to respondent No. 5 are liable to be cancelled after proper enquiry in accordance with law.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 on advance copy submits that from the pleadings made in the writ petition itself, it is apparent that the petitioner has no locus standi

¶29

5

¶30

to challenge either the compassionate appointment granted to respondent No. 4 or the initial appointment of late Ram Kishun Sahu, who is alleged by the petitioner to have been Krishna Kumar Sahu. It is contended that since the deceased employee, namely Ram Kishun Sahu, has already died while in service, no enquiry can now effectively be conducted against a deceased person in respect of the allegations sought to be raised by the petitioner, and therefore the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold; learned counsel further submits that even otherwise, Annexure P/2 annexed along with the writ petition itself clearly demonstrates that the SECL authorities have already initiated an enquiry on the basis of the complaint submitted by the petitioner against respondent No. 4, and pursuant thereto the petitioner has already been directed to furnish all relevant documents and materials in support of her allegations regarding the alleged fraudulent employment, and accordingly the enquiry is presently under progress before the competent authority.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶32

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as pleaded in the writ petition, and further taking into consideration the fact that the original employee, namely late Ram Kishun Sahu, has already died while in service and, subsequent to his death, compassionate appointment has already been granted to respondent No. 4 while respondent No. 5 has also been extended

¶33

6

¶34

pensionary benefits in accordance with the service records maintained by the department, this Court is of the considered opinion that at this belated stage no enquiry can reasonably or effectively be directed against a deceased employee in respect of the allegations sought to be raised by the petitioner; moreover, no material document has been annexed along with the writ petition to demonstrate that during the lifetime or service tenure of the deceased employee the petitioner or any other person had ever lodged any complaint before the authorities of SECL alleging that the appointment of late Ram Kishun Sahu was illegal or fraudulent in nature. It also appears from Annexure P/2 filed along with the petition that the SECL authorities have already taken cognizance of the complaint submitted by the petitioner and have initiated an enquiry by calling upon the petitioner to furnish supporting documents in respect of the allegations levelled by her, therefore, in absence of any substantive material warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in the present matter, and accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶37

Raghu Jat

Smt. Revati Sahu v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Revati Sahu v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandkeshwar Panigrahi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Madhu Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ratnu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Komal Chand Kahar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Sadesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/s Balaji Gas Company Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited