Madhya Pradesh High Court
Batailal Rai vs South Eastern Coal Field Ltd. on 16 December, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 16 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 23324 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. BATAILAL RAI S/O LATE SHRI BISAHU RAI, AGED
ABOUT 86 YEARS, VILL. AND POST PINOURA P.S.
NOWROZABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SADHNA RAI D/O SHRI RAJ KUMAR RAI, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, VILLAGE AND POST PINOURA
P.S NOWROZABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SAVITA RAI D/O SHRI RAJ KUMAR RAI, AGED
ABOUT 24 YEARS, VILLAGE AND POST PINOURA
P.S NOWROZABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ANVESH SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELD LTD. THR. ITS
CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGINGH DIRECTOR
SEEPAT ROAD BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR SOUTH EASTERN COAL
FIELD LTD. JOHILA REGION P.S NOWROZABAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. REGIONAL PERSONNEL MANAGER JOHILA
R E G I O N JOHILA REGION P.S NOWROZABAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DEPUTY REGIONAL M AN AGER PINORA SUB
D IVISION JOHILA REGION P.S NOWROZABAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. STAFF OFFICER JOHILA REGION JOHILA REGION
P.S NOWROZABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VAIBHAV
YEOLEKAR
Signing time: 12/16/2022
6:02:28 PM
2
(BY SHRI GREESHM JAIN - ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioners have filed this petition submitting one Batai Lal Rai was the original owner and land oustee. He was having 3.745 hectares equivalent to 9.25 acres of land. As per the rehabilitation policy of the respondent authorities, four employments were offered. They were respectively claimed for Seema Rai, daughter of Batai Lal, Grand daughters Sadhna Rai and Savita Rai, Grandson Vikas Rai. Two of the appointments were cleared by the authorities i.e. for Seema Rai and Vikas Rai. Two appointments were not cleared in respect of Sadhna Rai and Savita Rai, saying that as per policy, grand daughters are not entitled to seek appointment in lieu of the original land oustee. Thereafter, the appointments which were given to the daughter and grandson were also withheld.
2. It is submitted that now a policy has been floated by South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. dated 25/26-08-2022, which provides for appointment to even grand daughters.
3. It is submitted that parse the decision to not to extent appointment to grand daughter was indicative of gender discrimination and this aspect has been dealt with by the Chhattisgarh High Court in W.P. 432/2011 ( Ku. Rattho Bai and another Vs. SECL) relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Charu Khan and others Vs. Union of India and others, 2015 (1) SCC 192, wherein it is held that equality is the backdrop of gender justice and there cannot be any discrimination solely on the basis of gender.
4. Similarly, reliance is placed on the judgment of Chhatisgarh High Court Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 12/16/2022 6:02:28 PM 3 in Sadhna Bai Vs. State of Chhatisgarh, W.P. (S) No.1762/2016, where the Chhatisgarh High Court has declared Clause 2.1(c) of the R&R policy regarding employment being violative and discriminatory to the extent of exclusion of married daughter from consideration for employment.
5. Placing reliance on all these decisions, it is submitted that matter is still pending before the authorities of South East Coalfields Ltd. and they be directed to bestow their consideration and being a model public employer, instead of resorting to gender discrimination, grant appointment to the persons nominated by the family as mentioned above.
6. Shri Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for the South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., in his turn, submits that representation shall be considered in the right earnest and will be decided through a speaking order.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings and the arguments put forth by the parties and also in the light of decision of Chhatisgarh High Court in cases of Ku. Rattho Bai (supra) and Sadhna Bai (supra), no gender discrimination can be allowed and one family has an option to seek employment for four persons i.e. one person in lieu of two acres of land then, when a person even outside the family can be nominated by way of clubbing of the land, then denying appointment to the nominated members of the family only on the basis of gender, is arbitrary and illegal. Such practice cannot be accepted.
8. Thus, the petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the application and grant appointment to the persons nominated by the family as per the R&R policy within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of this order.
9. It is further clarified that due to non consideration, there will be no need Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 12/16/2022 6:02:28 PM 4 to seek fresh NOC from the family.
10. In above terms, this writ petition is allowed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 12/16/2022 6:02:28 PM