Jharkhand High Court
Renuka Bala Devi vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. on 10 February, 2010
Author: D.G.R. Patnaik
Bench: D.G.R. Patnaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3984 of 2004
Renuka Bala Devi Petitioner
Versus
1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman-
cum-Managing Director, Dhanbad
2. The Director Technical (Project & Planning), Bharat
Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad
3. The Director (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad
4. General Manager (Estate), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad
5. General Manager, Bastacolla Area No. IX, Bharat Coking
Coal Limited, Dhanbad
6. Estate Officer, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Bastacola Colliery
Area No. IX, Bastacola Colliery, Dhanbad Respondents
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.G.R. Patnaik
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rohit Roy, Advocate
For the Respondents Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
---
4.10.02.2010Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent, this writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents for granting employment to two members of her family in lieu of the acquisition of 6.74 acres of land belonging to her, by the respondent BCCL way back in 1982.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of acquisition of the lands, a policy was floated by the respondent BCCL and as per the policy, the benefits of one employment for every 02 acres of land acquired, was assured to the land holders. However, despite the fact that the lands were acquired pursuant to the land acquisition proceedings in 1981-82 and till 83-84, a check list of the lands acquired, was prepared by the concerned authorities of the respondent BCCL sometime in 1990. Upon preparation of the check list, and upon the petitioner being informed, she put up her claim for grant of employment to her nephew Vikash Banerjee submitting all the requisite documents including an affidavit (Annexure-3) stating her declaration for giving her consent for grant of employment to her nephew. Thereafter, the petitioner being eligible for employment to two more members of her family, claims to have pursued her demand with the concerned authorities of the respondents and though her claim was considered, but the same was turned down by the impugned letter dated 27.2.2004 (Annexure-8).
4. Learned counsel would submit that the respondent BCCL having assured and promised to grant employment in the ratio of one employment for every 02 acres of land acquired, they cannot be allowed to resile from their commitment and promises made to the petitioner as because, it was only on the basis of such promise, that the petitioner had agreed to the acquisition of her land by the respondents.
5. Per contra, the stand taken by the respondents, as appearing in their counter- affidavit, and explained by the counsel for the respondents, is that though the respondent BCCL had floated a policy under which it had assured to grant one employment for every 02 acres of land belonging to the owners of the land, but the petitioner had opted her claim for only one employment and did not opt for any further employment at all. Such option was exercised by her in the year 1990 demanding appointment of her nephew which was readily granted by the respondents. In absence of any further demand made by the petitioner thereafter, it was deemed that the petitioner had waived her claim for seeking any further employment for any member of her family. Learned counsel adds further that though, the scheme was in existence at the time of acquisition of the lands, but now, the same has been withdrawn and is no more available to the land holders. Learned counsel adds further that the claim made by the petitioner after more than 20 years of the date of acquisition of her lands, cannot possibly be entertained after such delay.
6. From the rival submissions, it appears that though, a scheme was floated by the respondent BCCL for granting employment to the members of the family of the land holders for every two acres of the land acquired, it was up to the land holders to inform and submit their claim seeking employment for the members of their family in accordance with the scheme floated. As it appears, the petitioner had made her claim for the first time in the year 1990 and that too, for only one employment. In the application or in the affidavit submitted by her for seeking employment, it does not appear that she had reserved her right for seeking any further employment, nor has she indicated even remotely in her application that she wants the number of employments in proportion to the area of land acquired.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not produced any further documents submitted by the petitioner, if any, in between 1990 to 2003 which could suggest that the petitioner during the entire period, had pursued her claim for any further employment beyond the one which was already granted to her. Reference made by the learned counsel to the office notings, as appearing in Annexure-4, are of the year 2003, which relate to the fresh application filed by the petitioner sometimes in 2003.
8. It is apparent from the aforesaid facts that having claimed only one employment, the petitioner, for more than 20 years thereafter, did not opt for any further employment and the respondents have rightly considered such conduct on the part of the petitioner as an act of waiver of her claim for any further employment. After such belated period of more than 22 years from the date of acquisition of the lands, the petitioner cannot possibly claim the benefit of the policy which, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, has now been withdrawn.
9. In the light of the above discussions and finding no merit in this application and therefore, this writ application is dismissed.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J) Ranjeet/