Jharkhand High Court
Nagar Kumar Addi @ Nagar Addi 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. 1263 of 2004
with
WP(S) NO. 1177 of 2004
with
WPS NO. 3572 of 2003
with
WPS NO. 3577 of 2003
with
WPS NO. 5765 of 2006
with
WPS NO. 5793 of 2006
Guljar Ansari & Ors. ..Petitioners ( in WPS 1263/04)
Raj Kishore Rewani & Ors ..Petitioners( in WPS 1177/04)
Raj Kishore Goswami & Ors..Petitioners( in WPS 3572/03)
Nagar Kumar Adi @ Nagar Kumar ...Petitioners ( in WPS 3577/03)
Alam Shafi Ansari .....Petitioner ( in WPS 5765/06)
Dhaneshwar Mahali .....Petitioner (in WPS 5793/06)
Vs.
1. Steel Authority of India Ltd , through Chairman, New Delhi
2. Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro
3. General Manager ( Personnel) Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Bokaro Steel Plant
4. State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro
5. Director, Project, Land and Rehabilitation, BSL, Bokaro
........Respondents
( in WPS No. 1263/04, 1177/04,3572/03,3577/03)
1. Steel Authority of India Ltd ,Bokaro Steel Plant
2. State of Jharkhand
3. Director, Project, Land and Rehabilitation, BSL, Bokaro
4. Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro
........Respondents
( in WPS Nos. 5765/06, 5793/06)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. V. Shivnath, Sr. Advocate
( in WPS No. 1263/04, 1177/04,3572/03,3577/03)
Mr. Sumit Gadodia
( in WPS Nos. 5765/06, 5793/06)
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. In these writ applications, petitioners prayed for issuance
of appropriate writ/direction commanding the respondents to consider
their cases for appointment in Class-IV post/ on the post of Khalasi as
displaced person according to the policy decision contained in Memo
No. 552 dated 21.6.1963, Memo No. 1737 dated 12.10.1979 and
orders passed in LPA No. 161, 162 of 1996 ( R) and MJC No. 139 of
1999( R).
-2-
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 is stated that the lands and house of petitioners
and/or their ancestors acquired for establishment of Bokaro Steel Plant,
thus petitioners are Category-1 displaced person. It is stated that
though petitioners are Category-1 displaced person and their names
registered in the Employment Exchange but they were not appointed
by the management of Bokaro Steel Plant. It is stated that being
aggrieved with the aforesaid attitude of management of Bokaro Steel
Plant, 382 persons, belonging to Category-1 displaced person, had filed
a writ application in the High Court of Jurdicature at Patna, Ranchi
Bench vide CWJC No. 2459 of 1995(R). Aforesaid writ application
allowed vide Annexure- 1 and after setting aside the order dated
11.5.1995directed the management to fill up the post of Khalasi after considering the cases of persons, who were called for interview in April 1992.
5. It appears that Steel Authority of India Ltd and other persons filed LPA No. 161 of 1996 ( R) and LPA No. 162 of 1996 ( R) against aforesaid judgment. During the pendency of the said LPAs, management proposed a scheme for filling up vacancies from among the candidates belonging to displaced family. 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 -3- orders passed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 26.6.1996 may 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 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.
6. 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."
7. It further appears that an application filed for initiation of -4- 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 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. "
8. It is stated that the D.P.L.R., sent a list of Category- 1 displaced person, name of petitioners find place, but respondents are not appointing them.
9. It is submitted by Sri V. Shivnath, Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioners of WPS No. 1263/04, 1177/04,3572/03,3577/03 and Sri Sumit Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners of WPS Nos. WPS Nos. 5765/06, 5793/06 that as per the policy decision read with the orders passed in LPA No. 161 &162 of 1996(R) and MJC No. 139 of 1999 ( R), petitioners being Category-1 displaced person are entitled for appointment on Class-iv post including that of Khalasi. They further submits that the management of Bokaro Steel Plant gave assurance that it will appoint Category- 1 displaced person from whose family non else appointed in Bokaro Steel Plant. Accordingly, it is submitted that now the management of Bokaro Steel Plant cannot be allowed to say that it will not appoint petitioners. Accordingly, it is submitted that a suitable direction be issued commanding the management of Bokaro Steel Plant to consider the cases of petitioners for appointment.
10. On the other hand, Sri Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel -5- appearing for the respondents ( Bokaro Steel Plant) submits that D.P.L.R., at the first instance, sent a list of 207 Category-1 displaced person. From the said list, except nine persons , others had already been appointed. He submits that thereafter D.P.L.R. sent another list of 79 persons . Some of petitioners of these writ applications claimed that their names also included in the aforesaid list of 79 persons. It is submitted that for implementation of the aforesaid list some aggrieved persons filed a writ application bearing WPS No. 1628 of 2003. It is further submitted that a Letters Patent Appeal, bearing LPA No. 264 of 2004, arose from aforesaid writ application and same was disposed of by order dated 20.8.2004. He submitted that the Division Bench of this Court after considering the fact that sufficient number of displaced person have already been appointed in Bokaro Steel Plant, had directed to stop appointment from amongst displaced person. Accordingly, it is submitted that in view of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment, now it is not open for the petitioners to seek appointment in Bokaro Steel Plant only because they are displaced person.
11. Learned counsel for the management further submtis that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SAIL Vs. Deby Lal mahato and others reported in 2008(3)JCR 152(SC) has considered the memorandum of the Government dated 3.2.1986 and concluded that the scheme relating to appointment to one member of every dispossessed family has already been withdrawn. It is submitted that in view of aforesaid memorandum also, petitioners are not entitled to be appointed as displaced person.
12. Some of the writ petitioners claim that their names find place in the list of 286 Category -1 displaced person. Thus, as per the direction given in LPA Nos. 161 & 162 of 1996(R) and MJC No. 139 of 1999(R), they are entitled for appointment. It is worth mentioning that a division bench of this Court in SAIL Vs. Yamuna Prasad Mahato and others reported in 2004(4)JCR 527 (jhr), had considered similar plea on behalf of Category-1 displaced person and at paragraph no. 25 of the judgment has held as follows:-
"This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the Bokaro Steel Plant was established for the growth of one of the steel Industries of the nation. It was dedicated to the nation and it is a prestigious Steel Plant. It was established in Public Sector. Land had to be acquired by the State under the provisions of the land Acquisition Act for which the Government paid huge amounts of compensation to the displaced persons and even went to the extent of providing employment in the manner described in this writ application. Therefore, the Government cannot be obliged to go on keeping alive the claim of every "Tom. Dick and Harry" for appointment nor can the Government of the Authority be called upon to -6- answer a charge that they are playing "ducks and drakes"
with the Orders of the High Court because the obligation of the State to ensure that no citizen is deprived of its livelihood cannot be stretched to such an extent that they are obliged to provide employment to every member of each family displaced in consequence of acquisition of land. This Court draws inspiration for the aforementioned proposition from the judgment of the Supreme Court of India passed in the case of "Butu Prasad Kumbhar V. SAIL" reported in "1995 Supp.(2) SCC 225 at 229, (para-6). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while dealing with the Rourkella Steel Plant and while taking the aforementioned view, have gone to the extent of saying that even if the Government or the Steel Plant would not have offered any employment to any person, it would not have resulted in violation of any fundamental right. On the contrary, their Lordships have said that acceptance of demand for employment would run counter to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This for is constrained to observe that Bokaro Steel Plant was depicted to the nation and not to the District of Bokaro only. It is a prestigious Plant of the country and repeated claims for appointment based on compassion must now be deprecated thoroughly and completely. Such considerations have deprived the Management of the opportunity to appoint people through open advertisement from across the country and because of Judicial Orders., they have been prevented from making such appointments and even today, claim after claim is being put forth demanding the benefits of displacement notwithstanding they having received substantial amounts of compensation. This must stop now. The Government cannot be said to be at fault and any such claim made before the Management should be frowned upon as bringing illegal pressure on the Government amounting to upsetting constitutional safeguards of Public Sector Undertakings to get and appoint the best of hands through open advertisements from all over the country. Consequently, this Court has no option but to hold that the writ petition is totally devoid of merit and accordingly proceeds to dismiss writ petition (Service) No. 1628 of 2003 filed by the 20 persons claiming appointment."
In view of the aforesaid binding precedent, petitioners have no right to be appointed on Class-IV post as Category-1 displaced person.
13. It is not out of place to mention here that Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding Civil Appeal No. 177 of 2008 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."-7-
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in these writ applications. Accordingly, all the writ applications as mentioned above are dismissed. However, parties shall bear their own costs.
( Prashant Kumar,J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 03 /01/2012 Sharda/NAFR