Disposed¶32

Dhaneshwar Mandal v. Secl

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jun 2026WPS/7673/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; WPS No. 7673 of 2022; Dhaneshwar Mandal vs SECL (through Chairman-cum-Managing Director) and others; TA and DA allowance claim by ECL/SECL mining sirdar; direction to decide representation within 90 days strictly in accordance with rules; fresh representation permitted within 30 days; prior petition WPS No. 5698/2016; Contempt Case No. 920/2019 dismissed 11.11.2019; representation pursuant to order dated 19.10.2016 undecided; writ petition disposed of; Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey; decision date 15/06/2026; NAFR; no monetary award; no precedent citations.

What did the court decide?

Permission to make a fresh representation within 30 days; respondent authorities directed to decide it expeditiously, preferably within 90 days, strictly in accordance with rules; no opinion expressed on merits of the TA/DA claim.

Dhaneshwar Mandal Vs Secl — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who claims he has not been paid Travelling and Dearness Allowances (TA and DA) according to prevailing rules, is entitled to payment of allowances/benefits under various heads. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

Perusal of documents annexed to the petition showed that the petitioner made representation before the respondent authorities, but the TA and DA bills submitted have not been placed on record.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation before the respondent authorities within a period of 30 days.

¶31

Key takeaways

If such a fresh representation is made, the respondent authorities are directed to decide it expeditiously, preferably within a period of 90 days, strictly in accordance with rules.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPS No. 7673 of 2022, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur) filed by a serving mining sirdar (Deg. PCSA, Jambad OCP, Kajora Area, ECL) seeking payment of allowances/benefits under various heads — specifically Travelling and Dearness Allowances (TA and DA) allegedly unpaid contrary to prevailing rules — and a direction to the SECL authorities to decide his representations. Counsel for the petitioner pointed to an earlier petition (WPS No. 5698/2016) in which liberty was granted to submit a representation and the respondents were directed to decide it in accordance with law, a subsequent Contempt Case No. 920/2019 dismissed on 11.11.2019, and a representation made pursuant to order dated 19.10.2016 which remained undecided. Respondents countered that no representation was made and that no provision in the standing orders or departmental rules provides for payment of TA and DA. Observing that the TA and DA bills submitted had not been placed on record, the Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits, permitted the petitioner to make a fresh representation within 30 days and directed the respondent authorities to decide it expeditiously, preferably within 90 days, strictly in accordance with rules. Writ petition disposed of (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.; 15/06/2026; NAFR).

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.06.16 10:58:05 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:23774

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 7673 of 2022

¶7

*** -** Dhaneshwar Mandal S/o Late Biro Mandal Aged About 53 Years Working On The Post Of Deg. PCSA (Mining Sirdar), Jambad OCP, Kajora Area, ECL, District Burdwan, West Bengal

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - SECL Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director Headquarter At Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Director (Personnel) SECL, Headquarter At Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - General Manager SECL, Johila Area, P.S. Naurojabad, District Umaria Madhya Pradesh

¶13

4 - General Manager SECL Bhatgaon Area, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

15/06/2026

¶19

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶20

“ 10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to call the entire records pertaining to this case.

¶21

10.2 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ in the nature of certiorari/prohibition/mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to decide and pay the claim of

¶22

¶23

entire payment of allowances/benefits falls under various heads.

¶24

10.3 Hon’ble court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide the representations of the petitioner pertaining to claim of his entire payment of allowances/benefits under various heads, in accordance with law supported with valid and lawful reasons, within stipulated time period, and further to pass any other relief(s) which it deems fit along with cost of the petition in the interest of justice.”

¶25

Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not been paid Travelling and Dearness Allowances (TA and DA) according to prevailing rules. He would submit that WPS No. 5698/2016 was filed by the petitioner wherein liberty was granted to the petitioner to prefer a representation before the respondents and the respondents were directed to decide it strictly in accordance with law. He would submit that one more action was taken, a Contempt Case No. 920/2019 was filed which was dismissed vide order dated 11.11.2019. Mr. Shukla would submit that though the petitioner made representation pursuant to order dated 19.10.2016, but till date that representation has not been considered and decided. He would pray for a direction to the respondent authorities to decide pending representation.

¶26

On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that pursuant to order dated 19.10.2016, the petitioner failed to make a representation before the respondent authorities and therefore, no order has been passed. He would further submit that there is no such provision in the standing order or the rules of the department to make payment of TA and DA to

¶27

¶28

its employees. He would submit that the writ petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶30

Perusal of the documents annexed alongwith the petition would show that the petitioner has made representation before the respondent authorities, but TA and DA bills submitted, have not been placed on record.

¶31

Taking into consideration the above discussed facts without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation before the respondent authorities within a period of 30 days and if such a representation is made, the respondent authorities are directed to decide it expeditiously preferably within a period of 90 days strictly in accordance with rules.

¶32

With the aforesaid direction(s) / observation(s), the writ petition is disposed of .

¶33

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶34

vatti

Dhaneshwar Mandal v. Secl

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhaneshwar Mandal v. Secl

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Vs Ramdas Baghel

Durg Bus Service Pvt.ltd. Vs President, Chhattisgarh Parivahan Karmchari Union And Ors.

Umesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

K. Sarika Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tribhuvan Lal Yadav Vs Chhattisgarh State Power General Company Limited

Ratnesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh