Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Pradeep Kumar Pandey vs H.K. Jaggi . on 5 December, 2014
Bench: V. Gopala Gowda, C. Nagappan
1
ITEM NO.51 COURT NO.11 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 139/2014 In SLP(C) No. 22795/2013
PRADEEP KUMAR PANDEY & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
H.K. JAGGI & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln. (s) for directions (I.A. No. 6), exemption from
filing O.T. and exemption from personal appearance and office
report)
Date : 05/12/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Swetank Shantanu, Adv.
Mr. Pratap Shanker, Adv.
Mr. Neeraj Shekhar,Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Thakur, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,Adv.
Ms. Bihu Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Tanya Shree, Adv.
Ms. Pinky Anand, A.S.G.
Mr. A.K. Panda, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S.K. Bajwa, Adv.
Ms. Manita Verma, Adv.
Mr. Shreekant N. Terdal,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard Signature Not Verified learned Additional Solicitor General of India on Digitally signed by Sushil Kumar Rakheja Date: 2014.12.09 behalf 18:04:05 IST Reason:
of the respondents-contemnors and learned senior counsel for the petitioners-complainants. 2 We have perused the order complained of in this contempt petition. It is necessary for us to advert to the Order of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court that has been affirmed by this Court vide Order dated 11.07.2013, operative portions of which are extracted as hereunder:
“It is crystal clear that appellants were entitled to the benefit of 1989 Scheme as the land was acquired in 1999 and in 1989 there was a scheme to provide employment to one person of each family of displaced person whose land had been acquired.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The Railway Board-respondent is directed to provide employment to one member of each family of the displaced person whose land had been acquired in terms of the Scheme of 1989.” On 11.07.2013, this Court, inter alia, passed the following order “The petitioners are directed to implement the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.” By reading the Order of this Court referred to supra, a specific direction is given to the respondents-contemnors to comply with the direction given by the Division Bench of the 3 Patna High Court in its operative portions to give employment to the land losers/ displaced persons/ dependants or legal representatives. That is not complied with by the contemnors, therefore, the present contempt petition is filed. The matter was adjourned on various dates at the request of the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the contemnors. The present application, I.A. No. 6, is filed by the respondents-contemnors with the following prayers.
“(i) Direct the Contemnors to dispense with the procedure/paraphernalia of revised appointment in Group 'C' and 'D' to which the Petitioners are entitled as per 1989 Scheme of Appointment for land-losers and grant two weeks time to do the needful.
(ii) Alternatively, to grant six weeks time to appoint the Petitioners as per provisions of 1989 Scheme.
(iii) Pass any such order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General of India has submitted that for Group 'C' posts written examination is required to be conducted as per the Recruitment Rules. The Division Bench Order or the Order of this Court does not refer to the written test examination referred to in the Recruitment Rules. Our attention was also drawn to Clause 4 No. (3) in the Scheme of 1989 which reads thus:
“Incidentally, as already clarified in the aforesaid instructions, not more than one job for one family can be given, even to the other conditions are satisfied. Further, once an offer of appointment has been made, in no case should any further application claiming appointment on ground of acquisition of the same piece of land for a railway project be entertained. All the applications received should be properly registered in a register and the final disposal also indicated to keep a proper check.” Learned Additional Solicitor General of India submitted that the Scheme and Clause No. 3 is only in relation to Group 'D' posts, therefore, requested to dispense with the requirement of written test to be conducted to the land-losers/ displaced persons/ dependants/ or legal representatives to enable the respondents-contemnors to comply with the Order of this Court. Having regard to the object and intent of the Scheme and also the purport of the Orders of both, the Division Bench of Patna High Court and this Court, we are very clear that the plea of the contemnors with regard to written test examination to be conducted to the above candidates was not urged at the time of passing the Order either before the High Court or before this Court. The object of this Court for granting the 5 relief in favour of the land-losers to give employment to the land-losers/ displaced persons/ dependants or legal representatives is to see that the land-losers, in addition to the compensation required to be paid to them, either for themselves, their dependants or legal representatives must be rehabilitated by giving suitable jobs either in Class 'C' or 'D' posts in the Railway Department who have lost their land in their favour which is public purpose.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Division Bench and this Court would clearly imply that the employment shall be provided to the land-losers/ displaced persons/ dependants/ legal representatives to rehabilitate them. We order Accordingly. Since we have granted the prayer, I.A. No. 6 is allowed accordingly. We grant two weeks' time to comply with the order complained of by giving suitable employment to the candidates who are land-losers/ displaced persons/ dependants or legal representatives.
The General Manager, Eastern Railway, who is present today is also directed to appear personally before this Court on the next date of hearing.
List the matter on 6th January, 2015.
(S. K. RAKHEJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER