Anwar Ali v. Senior E. R. Manager M/S Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Order on Board

15.10.2026

¶1By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.10.16 +0530 "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."

¶2Learned 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 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.

¶3Learned 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.

¶4I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents.

¶5The 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 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 extended to the daughter of the deceased employee.

¶6The 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).

¶7It 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 the prescribed period, and she received a monthly pension of Rs. 3,607/- from 16.08.1999 to 23.12.2016.

¶8It 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.

¶9In 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

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 (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