Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Subrata Hara vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 April, 2015
Author: I.P. Mukerji
Bench: I.P. Mukerji
238 21.04.15
W.P. 5651(W) of 2011
Subrata Hara
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sandip Kumar De .... For the Petitioner.
Although the State has served a copy of their
affidavit-in-opposition upon the Advocate-on-record
for the writ petitioner, they have not filed the
original in Court.
I have consulted a copy of the said affidavit-
in-opposition handed over to me by Mr. Dey, learned
Advocate for the petitioner.
The writ petitioner's grand father became a
land loser at the time of setting up the Bakreswar
Power Plant. His land was acquired by the State for
this purpose. On 21st August, 2002 the Government
of West Bengal published a statutory notification to
the effect that family members of land losers after
17th October, 1977 would be empanelled in an
exempted category and given jobs to compensate for
the acquisition of their land. According to Clause (3)
of the notification one member from the affected
family would be eligible for consideration against the
vacancies reserved for the exempted category.
There was no stipulation as to who would
S.D. constitute family members. A land loser was defined
as either an awardee of compensation for acquisition
of land or a member of his family.
The writ petitioner's grandfather swore an
affidavit on 5th August, 2010 nominating the writ
petitioner his grand son as his nominee for getting
the employment.
The writ petitioner applied for such
employment but the respondents waswere silent on
the issue.
I have perused the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State Government. The only substantial point taken in that affidavit is that by another notification dated 5th January, 2005 published on 23rd June, 2011 the category of persons who could come within the definition of family members was narrowed so as to exclude the grand children of the land loser.
It appears from the averments made in the said affidavit that the writ petitioner's claim for employment was rejected on the basis of this notification.
This is simply erroneous. Rights were created by the notification dated 21st August, 2002 and right to nominate a family member for employment was included as per the said notification. The notification was in exercise of statutory powers. Now, this vested right could not be easily taken away by a subsequent notification. In fact there is no recital in the subsequent notification that it would have retrospective effect. In fact the subsequent notification could not have any retrospective effect to take away vested rights of the land loser and his family members. To that extent the subsequent notification is bad in law. As the writ petitioner has not asked for quashing of the same, I am not setting it aside. The notification of 2012 is simply ignored as being nonest.
The interim order passed by this Court in this writ application directed inclusion of the petitioner's name provisionally in the list of exempted category candidates.
Under those circumstances, I direct the respondent no. 4 to immediately register the name of the petitioner in the exempted category consisting of land losers, permanently and not provisionally as directed by the interim order. This should be completed within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
This writ application is accordingly disposed of.
Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis.
( I.P. Mukerji, J.)