C^-5^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATLBIIASPUR INN^' W.P.fS) No. 2-5^ I /20ii PETITIONERS ^l. Ishwarilal Sahu S/o Shri Varun Singh Sahu, aged about 33 years, /2. Bhawanilal Sahu S/o Shri Varun Singh Sahu, aged about 35 years, 3. Ishwarlal Sahu S/o Shri Chhotelal Sahu, aged about 20 years All above R/o village - Lat, Post - Chandrashekhpur, Tahsil - Dharamjaigarh, District - Raigarh, (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS l] State of Chhattisgarh, through - Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ ,^ .^x^'' ^ ^ ^' <<;1" ^2] Union of India, Acting through- the Secretaiy, ]V[inistry of Coal, New Delhi 3] Chairman-cum-Managing Director, South / Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4] General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Raigarh Area, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 5] Collector, Raigarh, (C.G.) 6] Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue) Tahsil - Dharamjaigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ ^HC—78 'TST T<11^1<y1^, ^Tll-f-I^Ko, foldiy^ ^^^^..^.fAl..-.....^^ ^TT^T 'q^T^ (15Grf35^) ^n^r^ f<^jch '<TO^T7^T<^^NF WTTW ^f?cT 37T^?T CM^fci<fli 'HTR^f ^ 1^T^t <r^it^i< ^3tRW3TT^T SB: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohart Shrivastava.J. 12-05-2011 Shri Vaibhav A. Govercthan, c^ Shri KashifShakeel, counsel Shri N.Naha Roy, counsel for Shri Sushil Dubey, Governmej 5 and 6 on advance copy. The grievance of ttie petrtion] petitioners have been taken in acqui^ being provided employment as State and atso ignoring the award has been recorded that in procee] Divjsional Oificer, Revenue, in a| employment would be provided. Learned counsei for ttie petil made ciaim to respondent No.3 a| consider the case of the petitioners terms of award and the rehabjlitatil application in prescribed proforma h^ but in that regard, no steps have bee| After going through the plead) as also award dated 5/1 ^f09 (Annex| terms of policy with regard to granl have been acquired. The petition] applications filed by them in proform^ employment, foliowed by |>unsei for the petitioners. fl>r the respondent No.2. [^espondente 3 andl 4. ht Advocate for the State/respondents 1, ^TS is that even though the tand of ttie ^ition proceedings, e petitionere are not pro|/ided under rehabilitation policy of the c|ated 5/11/09 (Annexure P/7) wherein, it pings dated 10/09/09 before the Sub- liditton to payment of compensation, ioner submite that the petitioners have hd it is for the subordinate officers to |for employment.in accordance with the |>n policy. He further submite that the |is aiso been submitted by the petitioners h taken till date. |ng§, rehabiiitation policy (Annexure P/4) ^ire P/7), i found that there exisis certain of emptoyment to those, whose Sands ^rs have also placed on record, ttie before the SECL authorities for grant of (Annexure P/13). The dispute represerltation \..- ^. XI-HC—78 *<i»icfir»*<i<!t» 's^ ^ww^, •ss'^ww, [®i<ni'M^< ^sf.co^>^^^y/) ^.....^..^......'..............................^^QQ ^TI^T'q^^ (^3^T) 37T^T ^FT'RplW WT 3?TT^T^l^F ^- Deeptl + ^y^ (iwiw^f?^ sn^fY ^- wtas relating to grant of employment W.P.No:935/03 and W.P.No.131/01. the petitioner does not appear to b^ respondents 3 and 4 are therefore, oq the petitioners' application for grant policy as also the award. However, s( In this view of the matter. resp4>i petitioner's application for grant of| rehabilitation policy and the award ant without undue delay. Needless to emphasize, in remain undressed, they would be at li( With the aforesaid observationi <=M^fci<fll 'W^ff ^ f5T^t <f^1<^l< ^3TRm3TT^T also considered 5y ffiis Court in Jnder these circumstances, the ciaim of ftrivolous or without any basis. The liged to Gonsider the representatjon and of employment under the rehabilitetion > far, no decision has been taken. >ndlente 3 and 4 are directed to consider employment in aCTSordance witii the d take decision thereupon expedttiousiy, 4ase, ttie grjevance of the petitionera j^erty to approach the Court. ^, the petition is finaily disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge