Jharkhand High Court
Mohan Mahto vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd.. on 3 January, 2012
Author: Prashant Kumar
Bench: Prashant Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) NO. 316 of 2006
with
WP(S) NO. 336 of 2006
with
WPS NO. 348 of 2006
with
WPS NO. 1753 of of 2006
Mohan Mahto ..Petitioner ( in WPS 316/06)
Nazrul Ansari ..Petitioner( in WPS 336/06)
Sahadeo Nayak ..Petitioner( in WPS 348/06)
Bablu Chandra Bhowmik ...Petitioners ( in WPS 1753/06)
Vs.
1. Steel Authority of India Ltd ,Bokaro Steel Plant
2. Director, Project, Land and Rehabilitation, BSL, Bokaro
3. State of Jharkhand
4. Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro
........Respondents( in all the cases)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sumit Gadodia
( In all the cases)
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan,
( in all the cases)
C.A.V. ON 29.11.2011 DELIVERED ON 03 /01/2012
Prashant Kumar,J: Facts and questions involved in the aforesaid writ
applications are similar, therefore they are heard together and
disposed of by this order.
2. Petitioners prayed for issuance of an appropriate
writ/direction commanding the respondents to appoint them as they
are category-1 displaced person and their names included in the list of
207 persons forwarded by Director Project, Land and Re- Rehabilitation
( herein after referred to as D.P.L.R.) to Bokaro Steel Plant in view of
direction given in LPA No. 161, 162 of 1996 ( R) and MJC No. 139 of
1999( R).
3. It appears that for establishing Bokaro Steel Plant,a large
chunk of land acquired, resulting in displacement of huge number of
families. It further appears that as a result of meeting between the
management of Bokaro Steel Plant and Government, a decision was
taken for giving employment to at least one member of each displaced
family. It further appears that for giving such employment, displaced
persons were divided into two categories. Category- 1 consist of such
persons whose entire lands and buildings acquired, whereas
Category-2 consist of those persons whose only land acquired. It is
decided that the persons belonging to category- 1 shall be given
appointment at the first instance, whereas the persons belonging to
category -2 shall be considered for employment.
4. It appears that in the year 1991 a panel was prepared
-2-
consisting of about 2010 names. It also appears that out of the said
panel, large number of persons had already been appointed. It then
appears that a large number of persons of both the categories, whose
name does not find place in the aforesaid panel, approached the
concerned authority for consideration of their names for appointment.
Thereafter a committee constituted to consider their names and
interview letters issued to them fixing date of interview in April 1992.
It appears that later on management vide order dated 11.5.1995
decided that till the panel, already prepared earlier would exhaust, no
further selection will be made for appointment of displaced person.
5. It is relevant to mention that altogether 382 persons
including present petitioners challenged aforesaid decision of
management by filing a writ application, bearing no. CWJC No. 2459 of
1995 ( R). The said writ application was allowed by Annexure- 1 and
the order dated 11.5.1995 was set aside being violative of Article 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the said writ application ,
management was directed to fill up the post of Khalasi after
considering the cases of persons who were called for interview in April
1992. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Single Judge also quashed the
appointment of such persons who were appointed during the pendency
of the said writ application.
6. It appears that Steel Authority of India Ltd and other
persons, whose appointment quashed, have filed LPA No. 161 of 1996
( R) and LPA No. 162 of 1996 ( R). During the pendency of the said
LPAs, management proposed a scheme to fill up the vacancies from
among the candidates belonging to displaced family. The aforesaid
scheme reads as follows:-
'PROPOSED SCHEME'
(I) That since the list of candidates called for interview in
the year 1992 has become very old and was cancelled
once, the appellant company may be allowed to go on for
a fresh notification to the local Employment Exchange for
sponsoring candidates against vacancies. In the list of
candidates to be sponsored against the notification to be
sent for the purpose, displaced candidates from families
displaced as per the Land Acquisition Notification issued
at the time of setting up of Bokaro Steel Plant, from which
nobody has been employed so far, may be included. The
writ petitioner falling in this category may also be
considered for sponsorship. Similarly, those of the
remaining displaced candidates who were left in the panel
of 1991 which has been made inoperative in terms of the
orders passed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated
26.6.1996may also be included in the list of candidates.
Representation to the reserved communities like Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Communities may be allowed to be provided as per the Government directives on 'Reservation.
(ii) That a fresh interview may be held for selection of -3- suitable candidates sponsored as above against the said notification.
(iii) That the Director, Project Land and Rehabilitation may be directed to arrange for verification of the bonafides of person stated to be displaced candidates in the said list and this process may be directed to be completed before drawing the schedule for interview for such candidates.
(iv) Candidates from the 1991 panel who were previously offered employment but were prevented from joining by reason of the stay order granted by the Court on 3.4.1996 should be allowed to join subject to verification of their status as member of displaced persons from which no one has been appointed and subject to physical fitness.
(v) The persons who were appointed during the pendency of the writ petition prior to the stay order should be allowed to continue in employment.
7. From perusal of order of Division Bench, it appears that the aforesaid scheme proposed by the management of Bokaro Steel Plant, was approved and both the LPAs disposed of by following directions:-
" Both these appeals are accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforementioned scheme proposed by the Steel Authority with the following direction/observations:-
(I) The Steel Authority shall prepare a list containing names of displaced persons in accordance with clause (1) of the proposed scheme within two months of the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The list so prepared shall be sent to the Director, Project Land & Rehabilitation, for verification, who shall get the bona fide of the status and claim of such persons verified and submit the report in connection therewith to the Steel Authority within three months from the date of receipt of the request for verification. The Steel Authority will thereafter hold interview for selection of suitable candidates and prepare a panel containing the names of selected displaced persons within two months.
(ii) The persons whose names are included in the panel will be placed in two categories according to the criteria already laid down and referred to hereinbefore. The persons in category no. (I) will be given employment first.
Thereafter, those who are included in category no. (ii) will be considered for employment.
(iii) The persons who were appointed during the pendency of the writ application prior to grant of stay order on 3.4.1996 will be allowed to continue in service. The persons from 1991 panel, who were issued appointment letter prior to 3.4.1996 but could not join service due to the aforementioned stay order, will also be allowed to join service, subject to verification of their status and fitness."
8. It further appears that an application filed for initiation of a contempt proceeding vide MJC No. 139 of 1999 ( R) against the officers of Bokaro Steel Plant for non compliance of the aforesaid order passed in LPA No. 161 of 1996(R) and LPA No. 162 of 1996( R). Aforesaid contempt case disposed of vide order dated 1.8.2000 -4- ( Annexure-3) with consent of both the parties and following order passed:-
"The candidates who intend to be appointed on the post in question are directed to furnish the following information on affidavit:-
(I) The details of the notification under which their land were acquired.
(ii) The name of the family member in whose favour award was made.
(iii)Whether any member of his displaced family was employed by the management under the scheme.
Such information must be furnished to the Director, Project, Land and Rehabilitation, by 31st of August, 2000. (2) On receipt of such information, the opposite party/Director, Project, Land and Rehabilitation shall/the correctness of the information and forward his report to the management within four months from the date of receipt of such informations on affidavit.
(3) On receipt of the report from the Director, Project, Land and Rehabilitation, the opposite party/management will implement the order of this court strictly in accordance with the said report within three months and the compliance report must be submitted to this Court forthwith.
(4) It goes without saying that if, ultimately, any of the said information is found to be incorrect, the authority concerned will initiate appropriate proceeding including termination of the services of the persons concerned. "
9. It is relevant to mention here that D.P.L.R. submitted a list of 207 of category-1 displaced person and requested the management to employ them in view of directions given in LPA Nos. 161, 162 of 1996(R), MJC No. 139 of 1999(R). It further appears from Annexure-5 to the writ application, bearing WPS No. 316 of 2006, that out of 207 candidates named in aforesaid list, only nine candidates including the petitioners were not considered for appointment. Petitioners, namely, Mohan Mahto ( WPS No. 316 of 2006), Sahdeo Nayak ( WPS No. 348 of 2006) were not considered because their fathers had already been employed in Bokaro Steel Plant. Nazrul Ansari, petitioner of WPS No. 336 of 2006 had not been considered for appointment because his brother already employed in Bokaro Steel Plant. Bablu Chandra Bhowmik petitioner of WPS No. 1753 of 2006 has not been considered for appointment because as per the list of D.P.L.R. , he is a substituted displaced person.
10. It is submitted by Sri Sumit Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the cases that after making enquiry , D.P.L.R. included the names of petitioners in the list of Category-1 displaced person, thus, as per the scheme of the management of Bokaro Steel Plant and the direction given in LPA No. 161 and 162 of 1996 and MJC No. 139 of 1999(R), petitioners are entitled to be appointed on the post of Khalasi. He further submits that it is admitted by the -5- management that out of aforesaid list, forwarded by D.P.L.R., only, nine persons including petitioners were not given appointment by the management. Thus, the aforesaid action of the management is discriminatory, therefore, violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that management of Bokaro Steel Plant took a policy decision, in which it is clearly mentioned that in absence of son of the displaced person, employment shall be given to any other family member or close relative, who, after the enquiry, establishes that the displaced person is dependent on him. It is submitted that under the said circumstance, if ,on enquiry D.P.L.R. sent the name of petitioners in the list of Category-1 displaced person, it is not open for the management to deny employment to these persons. Accordingly, it is submitted that as a matter of right, petitioners are entitled to be appointed, thus, a writ of Mandamus can be issued in their favour.
11. On the other hand, Sri Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents ( Bokaro Steel Plant) submits that in the scheme, approved in LPA No. 161, 162 of 1996(R), it is specifically mentioned that only those displaced candidates will be employed from whose family non else employed so far. He submits that from Annexure-5 to WPS No. 316 of 2006, it is clear that fathers of petitioners, Mohan Mahto & Sahdeo Nayak already employed in Bokaro Steel Plant, because they are displaced persons. He further submits that the brother of petitioner Nazrul Ansari also appointed because he is displaced person. Thus , as per the aforesaid scheme, the management has rightly not employed aforesaid three petitioners because one person of their family has already been employed. He further submits that so far petitioner Bablu Chandra Bhowmik is concerned , the D.P.L.R. vide his letter no. 12 dated 5.2.2001 and letter no. 154 dated 9.4.2002 had disclosed that he is brother-in-law of original awardee Paneshwar Singh Deo, thus, he is a substituted displaced person. It is submitted that the Government by memorandum dated 3.2.1986 has withdrawn aforesaid policy decision for giving employment to one member of every dispossessed family, thus, on the aforesaid pretext also, petitioners are not entitled to be appointed.
12. It is submitted that only because names of petitioner figured in the list of category-1 displaced person, therefore, they have no legal right to be appointed. Thus no writ of Mandamus can be issued in their favour.
13. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. As noticed above, petitioner Mohan Mahto and Sahdeo Nayak were not considered for appointment, because their -6- father already employed as displaced person. Petitioner Nazrul Ansari has not been appointed because his brother already appointed as a displaced person. As per the scheme approved in LPA No. 161 & 162 of 1996(R), a displaced candidate can be appointed if non else from his family appointed. As noticed above, father of petitioners Mohan Mahto & Sahdeo Nayak and brother of Nazrul Ansari already employed by the management of Bokaro Steel Plant as displaced person, thus, as per the aforesaid scheme, aforesaid three petitioners are not entitled for appointment.
14. Sri Gadodia further submitted that as per the policy of Bokaro Steel Plant, any family member and close relative of displaced person can be appointed if the displaced person is dependent upon him. It is submitted that it is clear that the name of Mohan Mahto and Sahdeo Nayak recommended for appointment in place of their grand father, who are original awardee. Whereas name of Nazrul Ansari recommended in place of his father. It is submitted that fathers of Mohan Mahto and Sahdeo Nayak and brother of Nazrul Ansari were appointed on the basis of separate awards, whereas , names of petitioners recommended on the basis of other awards. Accordingly, it is submitted that as per the policy decision of Bokaro Steel Plant, petitioners are entitled to be appointed. Aforesaid submission raised by Sri Gadodia, appears to be misconceived. The policy decision relied by Sri Gadodia is referred in Annexure-8, attached with WPS No. 316 of 2006, which shows that in absence of son of displaced person, employment shall be given to any of the family members or close relative, who establishes that the displaced person is dependent on him. Thus, aforesaid scheme is applicable only if the son of displaced person is absent. Admittedly the father of Mohan Mahto and Sahdeo Nayak are alive, who are sons of petitioner's grand father. Under the said circumstance, aforesaid policy has no application in the cases of aforesaid two petitioners. Likewise brother of Nazrul Ansari has already been employed, thus, in his case also aforesaid policy will not apply. There is nothing on the record to show that on enquiry, it has been established that grand fathers of Mohan Mahto and Sahdeo Nayak and father of Nazrul Ansari are dependent upon them. Thus, in absence of aforesaid proof, said policy decision has no application in the case of petitioners.
15. Now coming to the case of petitioner Bablu Chandra Bhowmik, it appears from counter affidavit that D.P.L.R. vide his letter no. 12 dated 5.2.2001 and letter no. 154 dated 9.4.2002 had disclosed that petitioner is brother in law ( Sala) of original awardee, namely, Sri Paneshwar Singh Deo. Thus, it is clear that petitioner Bablu Chandra Bhowmik is not a displaced person rather D.P.L.R. substituted him in -7- place of displaced person. The scheme approved in LPA No. 161,162 of 1996(R) speaks of giving employment to displaced person not to substituted displaced person. In the said circumstance, I find that the management of Bokaro Steel Plant has rightly not considered the case of Bablu Chandra Bhowmik for employment.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding SAIL Vs Deby Lal Mahato and others reported in 2008(3)JCR 152 (SC) at paragraph no. 9 had quoted sub para (v) of para 4 of Memorandum of the Government dated 3.2.1986, which is reproduced hereinafter:-
" In the context of urgent necessity of public sector enterprises operating at commercially viable levels and generating adequate internal resources, over manning has to be guarded against, any understanding formal or informal in regard to offer of employment to one member of every dispossessed family in the project will stand withdrawn."
17. From perusal of the aforesaid decision of the government, it is clear that the scheme for giving employment to one member of every dispossessed family had already been withdrawn. In that view of the matter, petitioners are not entitled to be appointed as a displaced person.
18. It has been held by their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Batu Prasad Kumbhar Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd and others reported in 1995 ( Suppl) (2) SCC 225 that the person displaced on account of acquisition of their lands cannot claim employment in the industry, for which the acquisition was made, as a matter of right. Thus, displaced person have no legal right to be appointed in the industry for which their lands acquired, consequently, no writ of Mandamus can be issued in their favour.
19. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in these writ applications. Accordingly, all the four writ applications are dismissed. However, parties shall bear their own costs.
( Prashant Kumar,J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 03 /01/2012 Sharda/NAFR