Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Dewangan Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department Of General Administration Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur C.G.

¶13

2 - The Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶14

3 - Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Masturi District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶15

4 - National Thermal Power Corporation. Through Its Assistant Managar Human Resource Department Ntpc, Post Ujjwal Nagar Seepat Tehsil Masturi District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶16

	... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner	: Shri Siddharth Pandey,Advocate.
For State	: Shri Anand Dadariya,DyAG.
For Respondent - NTPC	: Shri Anuroop Panda, Advocate.

¶17

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

19/06/2026

¶20

This Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 18.03.2026

¶21

passed by the Respondent No.3, whereby representation of the

¶22

petitioner for employment has not been entertained since the same

¶23

2

¶24

was preferred by the petitioner before the authorities beyond the 30 days time limit set to prefer the same by this Court in order dated 29.10.2025 passed in WPS No.9957 of 2019.

¶25

Petitioner No.1 is a Project Affected Person. His land bearing Khasra No.941/4 and Khasra No.917/4 admeasuring 0.18 acre situated at village Janji, Tehsil Seepat, District Bilaspur has been acquired by the State of Chhattisgarh for the purpose of respondent National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Seepat, Bilaspur (for short, 'the NTPC'). It is the case of the petitioners that they have been provided compensation against the acquisition of their lands, but they have not been granted employment as per the scheme of Resettlement & Rehabilitation Policy promulgated by the NTPC in the year 2000 as also Rehabilitation Policy of the year 2007, and therefore, they are entitled for employment and rehabilitation.

¶26

The petitioners with their case that non-grant of employment and not granting rehabilitation is totally arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 920, approached this Court by filing WPS No.9957 of 2019 and other connected matters. In the said case, this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025 disposed of the said writ petition granting liberty to the petitioners to file representations for redressal of their grievances pertaining to providing employment, before the respondent authorities,

¶27

3

¶28

within a period of 30 days reckoning from 29.10.2025. However, the petitioners failed to file their representation within a period of 30 days before authorities which led to passing of the impugned order by which their representation has not been entertained.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representation of the petitioner was rejected on the sole ground that the same was not filed by the petitioners within the time limit of 30 days as directed by this Court in WPS No.9957 of 2019. He submits that the delay was neither willful nor deliberate, however, in a hyper technical manner, the SDO has not entertained the representation of the petitioner. He submits that the land of the petitioners have been acquired and if their representation is not even entertained then will suffer huge mental and financial loss. Considering the backdrop, this petition may be allowed.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as for NTPC objected to this petition submitting that the petitioners themselves were not vigilant in their approach as this Court had set a 30 days time limit then they ought to have complied with the same.

¶31

Considering the submissions made by the parties as also the facts and circumstances of the case in particular that land of the petitioners have been acquired by authorities and the representation of the petitioner for employment has not even been entertained on the ground that the same was preferred by the petitioners beyond the 30 days time limit, the petitioners are directed to file a fresh representation in this regard

¶32

4

¶33

within a period of 15 days from today which shall be considered and decided by the State authorities/Respondent No.3 within a further period of 60 days.

¶34

It is made clear that the petitioners are under an obligation to file the representation within 15 days, failing which, it will not be considered by the respondent authorities.

¶35

Accordingly, impugned order dated 18.03.2026 is quashed/set aside and this Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation/direction.

¶36

In view of the above, application for analogous hearing stands dismissed as withdrawn.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶39

Avinash

Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Dewangan v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Dewangan v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Kibaibalenga Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramadhar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Omkar Multispeciality Hospital Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narmada Prasad Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh