Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 24-09-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Brijesh Kumar Shukla & Ors.
  • Respondents: South Eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors.
  • Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (SLP(C)) No(s). 27803‑27804/2025 arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-05-2025 in WA No. 904/2020 and 18-07-2025 in RP No. 980/2025 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur.
  • Numerous Intervener Applications (IA) were listed, including IA No. 212739/2025, 276718/2025, 237030/2025, 225149/2025, 236962/2025, 205701/2025, 244896/2025, 238094/2025, 268884/2025, 280748/2025, 237624/2025, 237628/2025, 236471/2025, 236472/2025, 237449/2025, 237448/2025, 265071/2025, 265073/2025, 300918/2025, 300919/2025, 293279/2025, 303983/2025, 31234/2026, 31233/2026, 33201/2026, 36830/2026, 111442/2026, 144860/2026, all seeking exemption from filing other than (O.T.) or permission to file additional documents.
  • Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shree Chandrashekhar.
  • Counsel for Petitioners: Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Sr. Adv.; Ayushi Pandey, Adv.; Niranjan Marde, Adv.; Tanuja Manjari Patra, Adv.; Aswathi M.K., Adv.; Manish Kumar Gupta, AOR; Harshita, Adv.; Chandan Kumar Singh, Adv.; Sangita Gupta, Adv.; Jitendra Kumar, AOR; Piyush Kumar, Adv.; Reepak Kansal, Adv.; Geeta Jain Aggarwal, Adv.; Surender Tyagi, Adv.; Ritesh Dhir, Adv.; Ruhi Gupta, Adv.; Dushyant Sharma, Adv.; Pravir Choudhary, AOR; Abhishek Gaur, Adv.; Ratish Kumar Sharma, AOR; Alok Kumar, Adv.; Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv.; Apurv Singhvi, Adv.; Shalini Haldar, Adv.; D. K. Devesh, AOR; Gopal Mishra, Adv.; S.k. Gangele, Sr. Adv.; Priya Sharma, Adv.; Ritu Gangele, Adv.; Shrey Ravi Dambhare, AOR; Mohd Fahad, Adv.; Sandeep S. Tiwari, Adv.; Shingying Kristy, Adv.; Rekha S. Tiwari, Adv.; Aakanksha Tiwari, Adv.; Haroon Rashid, Adv.; Tilak Raj Pasi, Adv.; Ashutosh Bansal, Adv.; Dipika Malhotra, Adv.; Shiv Sagar Tiwari, AOR; Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv.; Pankaj Pandey, Adv.; Sahil Tagotra, AOR; Girish Tripathi, Adv.; Digvijay Prasad, Adv.; Shreya Kasera, Adv.; Rohini Narayanan, Adv.; Kshitij Chauhan, Adv.
  • Counsel for Respondents (SECL): Archana Pathak Dave, Ld. ASG; Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Sr. Adv.; Tarkeshwar Nath, Adv.; Harshit Singh, Adv.; Satyam Roy, Adv.; Anant Dev, Adv.; Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR; Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv.; Amit Sharma, AOR; Krishna Dev Pandey, AOR; Ravi Kumar, Adv.; Koushlendra Narayan, Adv.; Shashank Gaurav, Adv.; Sushil Kumar, Adv.; Arkaj Kumar Ga, Adv.; Harmeet Singh Ruprah, AOR; Tanya Raizada, Adv.; Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv.; Megha Karnwal, AOR; Ankita Anilkumar Singh, Adv.; Deepak Kumar, Adv.; Vibhas Tunkikar, Adv.; Aditya Kumar, Adv.; Praveen Gaur, AOR.

Order Details

1. While issuing notice on 19.09.2025, the Court directed that the petitioner shall not be terminated from service and clarified that it had not stayed the operation of the impugned order passed by the High Court.

2. Paragraph 39 of the impugned order directs SECL and the District Rehabilitation Resettlement Committee (DRRC) of the State Government to examine the claims of remaining eligible persons under the R&R Policy, 1991 and CIL R&R Policy, 2012 and to give employment to all remaining eligible persons, to be completed within one month from the date of the High Court order.

3. SECL counsel (Archana Pathak Dave, Ld. ASG and Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Sr. Adv.) submitted that the exercise under paragraph 39 is not yet complete; private respondents’ counsel (Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv.) submitted that the exercise had earlier been completed.

4. The Court directed Mr. Arkaj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh, to seek positive instructions on the above aspect.

5. The matter was listed for hearing on 01.10.2026.

6. Service to be completed in terms of order dated 01.09.2026.

7. Interim orders to continue till the next date of hearing.

Final Outcome

  • The petitioner is protected from termination pending final resolution.
  • SECL and the DRRC must complete the R&R employment exercise within the stipulated one‑month period, with the Court seeking clarification from the State counsel.
  • The case is scheduled for further hearing on 01‑10‑2026, with service of the order to be effected by 01‑09‑2026 and interim orders remaining operative.

Topics: Employment Rehabilitation, Coal Sector Litigation