^— •w CT»JH.S-HI^_GO^R2' OF JUDIOA?[JHE AT JAB.ALPITa Writ Pefeitlon mi^^^pf 1999. -^ PETITIONSH ? Madhuri Bo/., D/o Shri ^aalchandra Na^aKoy, aged about sz- years, B/o Bamd&<3 Nagar, Tikar%>ara» Bilaspur(M«P.). J/s. RIiSPOKDMT"G3 s ,^.1, South Sag-bem. Goalflelds Ltdo) throu^i Its a-iairman- cum^MaiT.aging Directopg Segpat Boad, Bila.spur(M*P,), 2» Sub Area MaTiager, Oilriniiri Gollieazy? Soufch Saste2*n Ooalfields Ltd»9 Ghirlmlri, District 3ur@ija(MoP*). PETIIIOTT UNDER AR'FIOLE 226/227 OF ITIE CONSriIU'?ION 2I.-:mDIA.^.R».KSUMCS«OF»WBI^ol-CEBIIO^lA^!^I5^^ MW _QEIEa JSPPBOpaiATE DIBEC'IIONS/ORDERS. .-^. >° 1 ^ f3 N ^ ^<? ^ ^s 1 p* l'; r>^ §ig IIJ 8 I . S i M 8 ^ 1 ^ ^,. s s v ^' ^ I ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ '^Il' ^ ^ ^ ^? ,P ^ ?4 s <i's g g ^: .,.? J:' ? 1 llll a s alil s' @ ^ f et ^ ^ i !' t 1 ^ j? 3 S ss ^ III ^ j^ & ?'$ ie ^, ^ '^^. ^.P.5L HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) WritPetition No. 1882 of 1999 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Madhuri Roy SECL and others p,C1 Post for pronouncement of order on ^ .10.2010 Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge 1 ^F$, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition No. 1882 of 1999 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Madhuri Roy SECL and others Ms. Sharmila Singhai counsel for the petitioner. Shri Abhishek Sinha counsel for respondents 1 &2. WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (6.10.2010) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 14.7.1998 (Annexure P-10) rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment in lieu of acquisition of the land belonging to the father of the petitioner. Petitioner has also prayed that she be awarded compensation for not giving her appointment in due course oftime. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that land of the father of the petitioner namely Amal Chandra Naha Roy situated at village Bhandar Dehi, Pachpedi, Chirmiri, was acquired by the respondent - SECL and in lieu of that monetary compensation was also given to him. Case of the petitioner is that in view of the policy of the SECL (Annexure P-1), the respondent - SECL is under obligation to provide employment to one of the family members of the displaced family. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that one Ram Milan Nai was given appointment on the basis of acquired land of Amal Chandra Naha Roy and ultimately it was found that he was not legally entitled to be appointed on the basis of the acquisition of land of Amal Chandra Naha Roy acquired by the SECL. It is submitted by her that a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by Amal Chandra Naha Roy which was dismissed by the Civil Judge vide judgment and ^. v^ decree dated 14.12.1994. Againstthe judgment and decree dated 14.12.1994 an appeal was preferred by Amal Chandra Naha Roy which was allowed by judgment and decree dated 22.12.1995 (Annexure P-2). It is submitted that in the said appeal it was declared that it is only the dependant of the plaintiff who is entitled for appointment and Ram Milan Nai to whom the appointment was given is not entitled for any such appointment. It is submitted that second appeal was preferred by Ram Milan Nai which was also dismissed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 18.9.1996 and thus on the basis of this pronouncement of the judgment and decree in the civil suit the petitioner is entitled for appointment. She submits that immediately after the judgment and decree of the Civil Court, the petitioner had filed applications Annexure P-6 and P-7 on 23.6.1996 and 16.11.1996 respectively. Father ofthe petitioner had also made an application for the said purpose on 12.8.1996 (Annexure P-8) but despite all this the appointment has not been given to the petitioner. She submits that even the legal notice sent by the petitioner on 28.6.1997 (Annexure P-9) remained un-replied and ultimately order impugned dated 14.7.1998 (Annexure P-10) has been passed refusing the claim of the petitioner. It is argued that in similar situation one Sahida Bano has been given appointmenton 24.3.1993 (Annexure P- 13). 4. Supporting the order impugned as well as the action of the SECL, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the appointment in lieu of the acquisition of the land is not a vested right of the petitioner but is a concession given to the land oustees whose land has been acquired. He submits that in the case of the father of the petitioner also after acquiring the land full monetary compensation was already given and therefore petitioner cannot claim any such appointment as a matter of right. He submits that as per the prevailing scheme, for the land losers the employment can only be provided to males in lieu of the limited employment opportunities in mining. He submits that the very purpose of giving appointment to one of the members of the displaced family is to give immediate financial support \\^ and respite to the ousted family. However, in the case in hand the land was acquired in the year 1980 but for the first time the claim was put forth in the year 1996. He submits that from the beginning the intention ofthe respondents remained bona fide and that iswhy Ram Milan Nai who had claimed himself to be dependant of the land oustee in respect of the same land for which the petitioner is claiming herself to be entitled for appointment, was given appointment. However, subsequently it was brought to the knowledge of the respondents- SECL that earlier Suddulal was the owner of the land and had sold his land to the father of the petitioner and therefore Ram Milan Nai obtained the appointment claiming himself to be the adopted son of Suddulal but when correct facts were established, Ram Milan Nai was removed from the job vide order dated 21.4.1997 (Annexure P-4). He submits that when the land of the petitioner's father was acquired, the petitioner was minor and though there were other male members in the family, no appointment by them was claimed. He submits that even while rejecting the claim of the petitioner vide Annexure P-10, father of the petitioner was asked to suggest some other name as dependant so that the appointment can be provided to him but till date no such claim has been made by any other family member of Amal Chandra Naha Roy. He submits that as no claim whatsoever was put forth by anyone of the direct dependant of Amal Chandra Naha Roy, it is to be presumed that they were not interested to get any such appointment. More so, in the year 1992 the petitioner got married and on this count also she is not entitled for the appointment in lieu of the acquisition of the land of Amal Chandra Naha Roy. He submits that policy (Annexure P-1) is dated 25.9.1991 whereas theland ofthe father ofthe petitioner was acquired in the year 1980 and thus the petitioner cannot take any benefit of the policy of 1991. In the year 1980 there was no policy in writing by way of circular etc. and therefore the persons whose land was acquired were given preferential right in the general recruitment subject to medical fitness and availability of posts. He submits that in the year 1984 it was for the first time when the policy was circulated by the Coal India Limited through its subsidiary Company and Annexure R-1 is the copy of one such circular. According to him, at the time of g 6 Sw, :. 2 , \^ considering the case of the petitioner in the year 1996, the policy of year 1984 was applicable according to which in view of the limited employment opportunities in mining sector, the employment has to be confined to male members of the displaced family and it is for this reason the petitioner could not be given employment. He submits that even if any appointment has been given to Sahida Bano, the petitioner cannot claim any negative equality. 5. From the order impugned it is clear that the application of the father of the petitioner was rejected to the extent of providing employment to the petitioner but the respondents have categorically asked Amal Chandra Naha Roy, the father of the petitioner to give the name of some other person who could be given appointment and the situation being so it cannot be held that the right of Amal Chandra Naha Roy has been taken away by the respondents in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, it is Amal Chandra Naha Roy who has failed to give some other name of his dependant till today as asked by the respondents and therefore the respondents cannot be blamed in any manner whatsoever. Even otherwise also it is not disputed that the petitioner got married in the year 1992 and assuch at the moment she cannot be treated as dependant on her father. Dealing with the similar situation in the matter of Punjab State EIectricity Board and others v. Malkiat Singh reported in (2005) 9 SCC 22 it has been held by the Supreme Court that the scheme giving appointment was only in the nature of concession to eligible candidates which cannot be claimed as a matter of right having taken compensation amount for his land, more so when he did not fulfill the necessary requirements under the revised scheme. This apart, as per the prevailing policy also the petitioner is not entitled to get the appointment in lieu of acquisition of her father's land. Secondly, the land wasacquired in the year 1980 and after about 30 years there-from, no such appointment can be given to her. Moreover, as a matter of public policy, a concession of the nature in the matter relating to grant of employment to the particular class of so called displaced persons could not continue for an indefinite period of time particularly, in respect of 'displacement' which had taken place in ''^ ff .^•' Ay the year 1980, no claim could be sustained in the year 2010 i.e. after a gap of about 30 years. 6. In view the aforesaid factual and legal scenario, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order impugned rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment in lieu of acquisition of her father's land in no way suffers from any illegality or infirmity. Accordingly, the petition carries no substance and is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed as such. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge