v:^^ r^ l y^l- ifc.£. IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G^ W.P. fS) No. 6Pll of 2010 PETITIONER l^fahendra Kumar, aged about 34 years, S/o Bhagwat Prasad, R/o Village Sardi, Tahsil Baikunthpur/ District Koria (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS; 1. ^ '/^' ^' ^@" ,^sf ^/^y 2. •^-' i<' ^^' 3. ^^4 i '^^ 1\1^ii"%.J '•v-ssvy ^-.', '';%^\^r 4. 5. State of Chhattisgarh Through; the secretary, Rehabilitation Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). South Eastern Coal fields Limited Through the General Manager, Bilaspur, Distrit- Bilaspur (C.G.) Sub-Area Manager, Charcha West Colliery, (S.E.C.L.) Post Charcha, District-Koria (C.G.) Collector, Koria, Baikunthpur (C.G.) Sub-Divisinal Officer, Baikunthpur, Baikunthpur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA \ 11-^11 t 'S^^n'/yjf ^^M^ o^ H!GHCOITRTPFCHHATTISGARH,:,BILA.SPUR S.B. ; HON'BLE SHRI MANIfmRA MOHAN SHRWASTAVA, J. PETITIONER RESPONDBNTS W.P.IS1 No.6104/2010 Matiendra Ki.miar Versus State of CIihattisgarh & Ors. Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndta AppearaBce: Mr. D.N. Prajapati, counsel for the petitioner. Ms, Sunita Jam, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No. 1, 4 & 5. Mr. V.R. Tiwari, counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3. ' ORAL- ORDER (Passedon21.6.2011) Heard on admission. 2. By tiiis petition, tlie petitioner has called m question coiTectness and validity ofthe decision takeii in tlie case of the petitioner and communica.ted to hini ^dde letter da.ted 29.3.2008 (Aiinexiire P-1), by which petitioner's claim tbr employment to his son-ui-law; in lieu of acquisition ofland ofthe petitioner, has been rejected. 3, Case of the petitioner is tliat the petitiouer has earljer filed writ petition before this Court. claiming benefit of employment on specific allegation that as the respondent-S.E.C.L. has been granting employment. to son-iii-laws of those ^vhose land have -2- ^ hi«^ been acquired; as a measure of rehabilitation, the petitioner is also entitled for such employmeut/ Vide order datecl 4th December, 2007, passed in W.P. (S) No.7179/07, the aforesaid writ petition of the petitioner as well as other persous was disposed ofwith the dtrection that ifthere is any case, where the son-in-law has been granted appointment m addition to compensation in lieu of acquisition of land^ the respondent authorities (respondents No. 2 & 3) may consider the appUcation of the petitioner, in the light of appointment made to son-in-iaw, if any. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation before fhe authority^ which has been rejected vide impugned order. 4, Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that tlie rejection of the application is not only iUegal but. also arbitrary and wifhout due application of mtnd. It is submitted that even fhough the State RehabilitMion Policy does not permit grant of employment to the son-in-law of a person whose land has been acquired by S.E.C.L, respondents No. 2 & 3, in practice, have evolved a policy of grant of employment to son-in-law of a person whose land has been acquired, in addition to payment of compensation. Learned counsel for fhe petitioner relies upon-letters dated 12.1.2007 and dated 22.8.2006 (filed as Annexi.ire P-6 collectively). He submits that even though number of such appointments have been made, the petitioner has been singled-out for discrimination, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ./ .v/ -3- ^ 5. On the ofher hand, leamed counsel for fhe State/respondents No. 1, 4 & 5 submits that as far as State Rehabilitation Policy is concemed, it does not permit grant of employment to the son-m- law of a person whose land has been acquired^ in addition to compensation. It is further submitted that fhe matter of employment by the S.E.C.L. is a matter ofpolicy for S.E.C.L. 6. Leamed counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 submitted that as per the Rehabilitation Policy of the State Qovt,, one member of the faiaily is entitled for employnient, if he is found eli^ble as per the norms of rehabilitation policy. It is further submitted that petitioner-Mahendra Kumar noininated one Rajesh Kumar Diibey for providing employment and employment has already been given to one Rainesh Kumar Dubey, who is real brother of son-in- law of Mahendra Kumar. Further submission is fhat the petitioner has not submitted any proof that Rajesh Kumar Dubey is member of his iamily. In any case, it is submitted fhat the Rehabilitation Policy does not permit such grant of employment t.o be inade m favour of son-in-law of land oustee. 7. This Court, in the earlier round of litigation, clearly directed consideration of the employment if siich einployment to son-in- law ofland oustee has been ^ven. It is clear from order dated 4th December, 2007 passed in W.P. (S) No.7179/07 (Annexure P-5). Thereafter, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected, stating that tlie said rehabilitation policy does not permifc graitit of 4- employment to son-in-law of land oustee. However, ttie respondent authorities have not considered flie same tn the liglit of appointinent given to son-m-law of land oustee. The material which has been placed by leamed counsel for the petitioner to show that son-in-law of other land oust.ee has beeu given appointment, could not be disputed by leamed counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3. This shows that fhe respondents No. 2 & 3, in practice, have been granting appointment to son-in-law of land oustee also. If that be so, the case of the petitioner could not be rejected on fhe ground that fhe State Policy does not permit, because respondents No. 2 & 3 seem to have evolved in practice/ policy of granting employment even to son-in-law of land oustee. However, such action of employment has to be restricted to one member of the family. Therefore, in a case, where any member of fam.Uy of land oustee has been given employment, fhen claim cannot be made for any other member of the family. Subject to this condition, if the land oustee nominates his son-in-law, then respondent No. 2 & 3 are bound to consider the same in the li^h.t of order passed in favoi.lr of ftie petitioner by fhis C3ourt iri W.P. (S)No.7179of2007. 8. During tlie course of arguments, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 also submitted fhat the document, which are being now placed by the petitioner before this Court, were not placed before the authority and for the first tiine, it is being brought to fhe notice that son-in-law of some of fhe land oiistee have been given -5- ^ employment. He submits tliat if these documents are placed before the Authority, the matter will be duly considered and claun for employment will also be decided as per the order passed by this Court earlier on 4^ December, 2007 inW.P. (S) 7179/07. 9. In view of aforesaid discussions, the decision taken by the respondent-authority, communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 29.3.2008 (Annexure P-1), rejecting petitioner's application^ is declared illegal and is set aside, The matter is reinanded to respondent No. 2 for consideratiou ofthe case oftlie petitioner afresh, after taking mto consideration the fact regardmg grant of employment. to son-in-law of land oustee, flie order dated 12.1.2007 and dated 22.8.2006 (filed collectively as Annexure P-6). 10. The petition is accordingly allowed to the extent and in the inamier iiidicated above, Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude