ANWAR ALI vs SENIOR E. R. MANAGER M/s INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED

1

CGHC010372412026 2026:CGHC:44715
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 7154 of 2026
1 - Anwar Ali S/o Akhtar Ali Aged About 60 Years R/o Tarbahar Near
Guru Ghasidas Mandir, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Senior E. R. Manager M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited Western
Region 254- C Dr. Annie Besant Road, Prabhadevi Mumbai 400025
Digitally
signed by
AMARDEEP
CHOUBEY
Date:
2026.10.16
17:00:21
+0530
AMARDEEP
CHOUBEY
(Maharastra).
2 - Deputy General Manager M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Western Region Indian Oil Bhavan - B K C, Plot C - 33, G - Block
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai, (Maharastra)
3 - Dipo Manger Indian Oil Corporation Limited Mumbai, (Maharastra)
4 - Senior Circle Manager Indian Oil Corporation Limited District Raipur
C.G.
5 - Smt. Jaheda Begum D/o Late Shri Akhtar Ali Aged About 55 Years
R/o Tarbahar Near Guru Ghasidas Mandir, Tehsil Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondents
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Petitioner :Mr. Pranay Gupta and Mr. Sourabh
Sonwani, Advocates
For Respondents :Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate.
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
15.10.2026
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following
reliefs:-

2
“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for
the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner
from the possession of the respondents for its kind
perusal.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
set-aside the order dated 14.08.2026 (ANNEXURE P/1)
passed by the respondent No. 2.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the Respondent authority to decide the long-term
inaction of the petitioner from the year 1999 (i.e.
representation dated 06.11.1999, 17.11.2000, and
30.12.2005) and grant compensate appointment to
petitioner considering his representation and her mother
representation.
10.4 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court
may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of
the case may also kindly be granted.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s
father, Late Shri Akhtar Ali, who was employed as an Operator
(Field) with respondent No. 1, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, died
in harness on 16/08/1999. Thereafter, the petitioner and his
mother submitted representations seeking compassionate
appointment. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s mother,
Late Smt. Hadishu Nisha, continued to receive monthly payments
under Option R-1 of the SBF Scheme until her death on
23/12/2016, and thereafter, in July 2017, the respondent
authorities disbursed a lump sum amount of 3,80,339/- to ₹
respondent No. 4. Learned counsel submits that, being aggrieved,
the petitioner approached this Court by filing WPS No. 5526/2017,
wherein, vide order dated 10/07/2026, the respondent authorities
were directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending

3
representation. However, instead of conducting a proper inquiry
into the petitioner’s dependency status and considering his claim
on its merits, respondent No. 2 rejected the petitioner’s claim vide
impugned communication dated 14/08/2026.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the wife of the
deceased employee had opted to receive the full pensionary
benefits under the rehabilitation scheme, and the benefits payable
after her death were subsequently extended to the daughter of the
deceased employee. Learned counsel further submits that the
relevant documents have been placed on record by respondents
No. 1 to 4 along with a covering memo dated 14/10/2026. The
aforesaid submissions and documents have not been
controverted by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is, therefore,
contended that the petitioner’s claim has rightly been rejected by
the impugned order dated 14/08/2026 (Annexure P/2), which
reiterates that the wife of the deceased employee had opted for
the full pensionary benefits under the rehabilitation scheme, as
evidenced by the document dated 16/10/1992 issued by Indian Oil
Corporation Limited.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
pleadings and documents.
5. The record reveals that the wife of the deceased employee had
opted to receive the full pensionary benefits under the
rehabilitation scheme, as evidenced by the document dated

4
16/10/1992 issued by Indian Oil Corporation Limited. It is further
manifest from the record that she continued to receive monthly
benefits under Option R-1 of the SBF Scheme during her lifetime
and, after her demise, the benefits payable under the said
scheme were ext ended to the daughter of the deceased
employee.
6. The aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf of the
respondents, duly supported by the documents placed on record,
have not been controverted by learned counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the material available on record, the petitioner has
failed to establish any illegality or infirmity in the decision of the
respondent authorities warranting interference by this Court. It
further appears that, pursuant to the order dated 10/07/2026
passed by this Court in WPS No. 5526/2017, the respondent
authorities considered the petitioner’s representation and rejected
his claim vide the impugned communication dated 14/08/2026
(Annexure P/2).
7. It is further apparent that, at the relevant point of time, the
beneficiary entitled to receive the post-death rehabilitation
benefits under the Scheme, in respect of late Shri Akhtar Ali, was
his wife, Smt. Hadishu Nisha, who was entitled to receive the
admissible benefits payable upon the death of the deceased
employee in accordance with the applicable Scheme and the
nomination on record. The benefit was duly extended to her within

5
the prescribed period, and she received a monthly pension of Rs.
3,607/- from 16.08.1999 to 23.12.2016.
8. It is further manifest from the order impugned that Smt. Hadishu
Nisha, wife of late Shri Akhtar Ali, expired on 23.12.2016.
Thereafter, in accordance with the nomination made by the
deceased employee’s spouse, the admissible amount was
disbursed to the nominee daughter, Ms. Jaheda Begum.
Accordingly, Ms. Jaheda Begum received a lump-sum amount of
Rs. 3,80,339/-, which was processed and disbursed in July 2017.
Thus, the records demonstrate that the benefits admissible under
the Scheme were duly extended to the eligible beneficiaries in
accordance with the applicable provisions and the nomination on
record. The respondent Corporation has, therefore, discharged its
financial obligations and liabilities towards the deceased
employee and his legal heirs in respect of the benefits arising out
of or connected with his employment under the Corporation. In
these circumstances, no further claim survives for consideration.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the
writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .
SD/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
JUDGE
Amardeep