Chhattisgarh High Court
WPS/3007/2020 of CHAINKUNWAR DANSENA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 24 August 2026
of 2020) CGHC010164302020 2026:CGHC:38069 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3007 of 2020 1 - Chainkunwar Dansena S/o Jagannath Dansena Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Chhal, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Kunal Dansena S/o Gopal Prasad Dansena Aged
(WPS No. 3007 of 2020)
CGHC010164302020
2026:CGHC:38069
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 3007 of 2020
1 - Chainkunwar Dansena S/o Jagannath Dansena Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Chhal, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Kunal Dansena S/o Gopal Prasad Dansena Aged About 15
Years Minor, Represented Through Grandmother Chaikunwar Dansena (Petitioner No. 1), R/o Village Chhal, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief Managing Director South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Headquarter Seepat Road, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The General Manager (Mines) Secl, Chhal Sub Area, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - The Deputy General Manager (Mines), Secl, Chhal Sub Area District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from the Case Information System)
For Petitioner :- Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. K.K. Pandey, Advocate For State :- Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer For Respondent Nos.2 to 4 :- Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate
(WPS No. 3007 of 2020)
SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 25.08.2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is not challenging any particular order but inaction on the part of the respondent authorities for not considering the case of petitioner for grant of employment under SECL in lieu of acquired land.
2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent-SECL would submit that the petitioner’s claim has already been considered and decided by SECL vide order dated 04.07.2025, whereby it has been held that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of employment.
3. In view of the aforesaid submission, nothing further survives for consideration in the instant writ petition, which is accordingly rendered infructuous. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to assail order dated 04.07.2025, in accordance with law.
Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge @d!t!