MP High Court Orders Probe Into SECL Jobs Allegedly Secured Through Marriages With Landowners’ Daughters

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a South Eastern Coalfields Limited employee challenging his demotion over allegations of contracting a second marriage without informing the employer, while also directing a wider inquiry into appointments allegedly secured through “unscrupulous means” under the company’s rehabilitation scheme.

Justice Maninder S. Bhatti, while rejecting the plea of Lalman Singh, observed that instances where persons allegedly secured employment by projecting themselves as sons-in-law of landowners whose land had been acquired by the company could not be ignored. The Court said such acts appeared to deprive genuine beneficiaries of rehabilitation policies.

The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal along with Advocate Kapil Sharma, while Advocates Greeshm Jain and Shraddha Pandey appeared for the respondents.

According to the petition, Singh was appointed as a loader in 1985 and later promoted to Clerk Grade-II. He claimed that he had married Meera Bai in 1984 according to tribal customs, but the marriage ended through customary separation. He later married Sarla Singh in 1987 and, after her death, married Vidyawati Singh. Singh argued that the employer wrongly treated the second marriage as misconduct under the Certified Standing Orders.

The dispute arose after SECL issued a charge sheet in 2005 alleging that Singh had entered into another marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage without obtaining prior permission from the management. Following a departmental inquiry, the charge was held proved and Singh was reverted from Clerk Grade-II to Clerk Grade-III in 2007. His departmental appeal was later rejected.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the charge of bigamy had not been established through proper evidence. It was contended that his first marriage had already dissolved in accordance with tribal customs and that even an affidavit by Meera Bai supported the claim that she had separated from Singh and remarried another man.

However, the Court noted that Singh had secured employment under a rehabilitation scheme meant for landowners and their direct linear dependents after projecting himself as the son-in-law of a landowner whose property had been acquired by SECL. The Court observed that there was no material to show that the employer had ever been informed about the alleged dissolution of the first marriage or that permission had been sought before entering into another marriage.

The Court further found that neither Meera Bai nor her father were examined during the departmental inquiry, despite their evidence being crucial to establish the petitioner’s defence. Justice Bhatti held that “the charge levelled against the petitioner was duly proved” and concluded that no interference with the disciplinary action was warranted.

In significant observations, the Court said there appeared to be glaring misuse of rehabilitation policies by persons who allegedly entered into marriages solely to obtain employment benefits linked to land acquisition. The Court observed that tribal and illiterate landowners were sometimes “lured by machiavellian persons” who projected marriages with their daughters only to secure jobs and later ended those relationships.

The Court directed SECL to conduct an inquiry into similar appointments where persons obtained employment by claiming to be sons-in-law of landowners and later contracted second marriages after asserting that earlier marriages had ended through separation or dissolution. The inquiry has been directed to be completed within 120 days after giving an opportunity of hearing to all affected parties.

The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Referring to Standing Order 26.20, the Court noted that employees could not contract another marriage during the lifetime of a spouse without prior permission from the management. The judgment also recorded that SECL amended its rehabilitation policy in 2008 and removed sons-in-law from the category of linear dependents.

The Court observed that the loophole had earlier enabled persons to “secure the fruits of employment” by projecting relationships. It added that if the inquiry reveals marriages were performed only to obtain employment, the employer would be free to initiate action against employees.

Case Title: Lalman Singh v. South Easter Coalfields Ltd.

Date of Order: April 30, 2026

Bench: Justice Maninder S. Bhatti