High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/374/2014disposed off

Laxmi Singh Banjare v. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. And ORS

2019-07-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 374 of 2014 • Laxmi Singh Banjare S/o Shri Shyam Lal Banjare Aged About 30 Years R/o Basant Vihar, Quarter No. A-113, Bilaspur, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur C.G.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, through The Managing Director, SECL, Bilaspur C.G.

2. The General Manager, (Man Power), SECL, Bilaspur C.G.

3. The General Manager (Personnel And Administration), SECL, Bilaspur C.G.

4. The Director (Personnel), SECL, Bilaspur C.G.

5. Rejendra Singh Chauhan (R.S. Chauhan), General Manager (Welfare/CSR), SECL Headquarter, Bilaspur C.G.

6. The Collector, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur C.G. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Roshan Dubey, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 5 :

Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents/State :

Shri Anand Verma, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 09/07/2019

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleads no instructions and submits that the instructions are awaited.

3. The present petition is against the order dated 29.11.2013 whereby the

petitioner was declared as Persona Non-Greta (unwanted person) for the reason that he entered forcefully into the office of SECL, abused and caused damage to the office equipments and misbehaved with the officers. Since the petitioner was nowhere related to the SECL, he was declared as Persona NonGreta and was barred to enter into the office of the SECL.

4. It appears that till today 6 years have passed. On the earlier occasion, time was given to seek instructions, however, the instructions to the petitioner's counsel is still awaited.

5. Learned counsel for the SECL would submit that at present the scene might have been changed as the concerned officers have already been transferred with the passage of time and in such case the petitioner even if is still aggrieved and still his grievance continues, he may file necessary application or representation before the concerned authority/officer, which may be decided afresh without any malice to the earlier order which has already been passed before six years.

6. Considering the submission made by the parties, it is directed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to make afresh representation before the SECL, if so advised, and if he wants to redress his grievance and if such representation is made, the same shall be decided without prejudice to the earlier order dated 29.11.2013 taking into the change of scenes which has taken place with the change of time.

7. With such observation, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu