Jharkhand High Court
Pawan Kumar vs Central Coalfields Limited on 22 June, 2018
Author: Pramath Patnaik
Bench: Pramath Patnaik
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 28 of 2015
-------
Pawan Kumar, son of Sitaram Sahu, resident of Bishrampur,
Dakra, P.O Khelari, P.S. Khelari, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, at
present resident of B 424, Sector III, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Central Coalfields Limited, a Government Company, in the
meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, through the
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, at Darbhanga House, Ranchi,
P.O G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District: Ranchi.
2.General Manager, Revenue Office, Central Coalfields Limited, at
Darbhanga Hous, Ranchi, P.O G.P.O P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.
3.General Manager, North Karanpura, Dakra Area, Central
Coalfields Limited, at Dakra, P.O & P.S. Khelari, District Ranchi.
... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. V. Shivnath, Sr. Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Adv
Ms. Puja Kumari, Adv.
Ms. Swati Shalini, Adv.
------
C.A.V on 18.05.2018 Delivered on 22/06/2018
Per Pramath Patnaik, J.:
In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for employment as a displaced person as per scheme of rehabilitation.
2. The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief, is that in the year 1976, the respondents-CCL acquired 12.02 acres of lands belonging to raiyat - Bishun Dayal Sahu, the great grandfather of the petitioner, under the Coal Bearing Act. It has further been averred that said Bishun Dayal Sahu died leaving behind his two sons, namely, (1).Laldeo Sahu and (2).Ramchandra Sahu, who died leaving behind three sons each i.e. (1)Baso Sahu (2) Ramkishore Sahu and (3).Kanchan Sahu son of Late Laldeo 2 Sahu and (1)Bigal Sahu, (2).Rameshwar Sahu and (3).Laxman Sahu all sons of Late Ramchandra Sahu. It has further been averred that amount of compensation as against the acquired land was paid to the land losers and as per the policy of rehabilitation of December, 1984, which came into effect from 01.01.1985, employment was also to be provided as per the Scheme floated by the respondents-company. It has further been averred that initially two persons, namely, Sri Suresh Prasad Sahu and Sri Aditya Prasad Sahu, being the nominees of (1)Bigal Sahu, (2).Rameshwar Sahu and (3).Laxman Sahu all sons of Late Ramchandra Sahu; were given employment. Later on, three more employments were given to nominees of (1).Baso Sahu (2).Ramkishore Sahu and (3).Kanchan Sahu son of Late Laldeo Sahu. At this juncture, it has been alleged that as per the uniform policy for offering employment under the land loser scheme, which came into effect from 01.01.1985, the standard norms have been fixed for one employment for three acres of non-irrigated land and employment of one person against each two acres of irrigated land. Further, para 2 of the Circular mentions that the norms may be reduced to two acres per person, if the person is matriculate or above and opts to join initially as an apprentice for a period of two years during which he will be paid a fixed stipend per month. The main dispute between the parties is that petitioner claim that Sri Suresh Prasad Sahu and Sri Aditya Prasad Sahu, have been appointed as an apprentice and one more employment is left out whereas respondents-CCL states that Sri Suresh Prasad Sahu and Sri Aditya Prasad Sahu though initially joined as apprentice but later 3 on, on their request they have been absorbed/appointed as Clerk against three acres of land each, as such the petitioner has been denied employment. Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner represented before the respondents-authorities but did not yield any fruitful result. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of his grievances under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Heard Mr. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondents-CCL being assisted by Ms. Puja Kumari and Ms. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the respondents-CCL.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that as a matter of fact it is the respondents- authorities, who themselves on number of occasions came to a definite and concrete finding that total five numbers of employments have been given against the 10 acres of land and against balance 2.02 acres of land, one more employment is still lying vacant, as evident from Annexure 22 series of the rejoinder to supplementary counter affidavit 05.09.2016. It has further been averred that in the year 1985 against 5.69 acres of land two employments were given, which was duly acknowledged by the respondents and the respondents never acted upon employment against 6.01 acres of land i.e. one part of share of land; as the remaining land was under dispute and was subjudice in the Tribunal/Court. Hence, at no stretch of imagination, it can be construed that respondents have given two employment treating it 6 acres (three acres each for one employment). However, when the 4 case was decreed in favour of the petitioner, 2.01 acres of land remained for one employments; and taking into consideration this fact of the matter, at one point of time, the authorities of the respondents-CCL themselves made recommendation for employment of the petitioner, but, now they by supplementing extraneous reasons have denied the rightful claim of the petitioner.
5. As against this, at the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents-CCL submitted that the claim of the petitioner is hopelessly time barred and the petitioner approached this Court after lapsing of more than four decades and by such long span of time, interest of other parties may also arise, which cannot be brushed aside at this point of time, if the petitioner's claim is entertained. On the merit of case, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as a matter of fact, out of total 12.02 acres of land acquired, 6.01 acres of land was exhausted while giving employment to two persons, i.e. Sri Suresh Prasad Sahu and Sri Aditya Prasad Sahu, as per circular dated 31.12.1984, as an apprentice. But these appointees/apprentice vide their written letter dated 16.08.1985 refused to join as apprentice, hence they were employed as Clerk Grade III (Trainee) against 6.01 acres of land, thereby it attracted one employment for every three acres of land. Even otherwise also, the petitioner-Pawan Kumar is the legal heir of Laldeo Sahu but he is claiming employment against the so- called left out land from the branch of Ram Chandra Sahu, hence otherwise also he is not entitled to get employment.
6. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised by the parties and on perusal of the documents 5 available on record, in particular, the rules/circulars relating to employment norm against the land acquisition during the relevant period; in the context of the case at hand it is manifestly clear that "standard norm is for one employment for 3 acres of non-irrigated land and two acres of irrigated. However, if the land loser being considered for employment is matriculate or above the norm may be reduced to two acres per person, if he opts to join initially as an apprentice of a period of two years during which he may be paid fixed stipend per month." From the pleadings available on record, in the case at hand though against 6.01 acres of land two persons, namely, Suresh Prasad Sahu and Aditya Prasad Sahu were given employment as apprentice, but, as per the averment made in the supplementary counter affidavit, these appointees vide their written letter dated 16.08.1985 refused to join as apprentice, hence they were absorbed/employed as Clerk Grade III (Trainee) against 6.01 acres of land on the proposition of one employment for every three acres of land. Hence, out of total 12.02 acres five employments were created/offered, which has already been exhausted. So far Annexure 22 series to the supplementary counter affidavit dated 5.9.2016 referred by the petitioner is considered it is the only recommendation made by the authorities and not the final order. It is settled principles of law that recommendation does not create any indefeasible right of employment. On the other hand, the respondents-authorities vide order dated 08.07.2014, Annexure F to the counter affidavit, rejected the claim of the petitioner, which has never been challenged by the petitioner before any forum, and in this order the 6 authorities have taken specific ground that against 6.01 acres of land - two employments were given and for rest 6.01 acres of land - three employments were given as per the guidelines in vogue during the year 1985 and during the year 2002. Besides, the petitioner has approached this Court after lapsing of more than four decades of acquisition of land.
7. As a logical sequitur to the facts, reasons and discussions made in the forgoing paragraphs and conclusions arrived at by this Court, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
(Pramath Patnaik, J.) Alankar/-