«€A! !^.»°% 9 fSBss!ssi% j HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shvam Sharma.JJ. W.A.No. 542/2011 APPELLANTS ^^ General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Seepat Road, Post Box No. 16, Bilaspur (C.G.). Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Lfd. Circle- Kusmunda, Gevra Project, Distt. Korba (C.G.). Deputy General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Circle- Kusmunda, Distt. Korba (C.G.). Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Circle- Kusmunda, Distt. Korba (C.G.). VERSUS Ramkishun Yadav, S/o Ganpatram Yadav, Aged about 42 years, R/o Village- Mamgaon, PO- Gevra Basti, Distt. Korba (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Secretary, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). The Collector, Korba, Chhattisgarh. WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH), ACT,2006 RESPONDENTS r .ij Appearance: Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for the appellants. ORAL ORDER (16.12.2011) SUNILKUMARSINHA.J. Heardonl.A.No. 01/2011. I.A. No. 01/2011 is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appeal is barred by 67 days of lirriitation. /^•e^ &k ..^-^ !.-~-^'S.::*.^^. '•& lij 'fSSSSsQ,, N '^SSB^' ^ W.A.No. 542/2011 On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellante we are satisfied that the appellants have shown sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time and the delay in filing the appeai deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2011 is allowed and the delay in fling the appeal is hereby condoned. Heard on admission. The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 29 of July, 2011 passed in W.P.(C) No. 686/2010. Respondent No.1 is a land oustee. The land belonging to his father bearing Khasara No. 167/24, admeasuring 0.243 hectares, was acquired by the S.E.C.L. under Coal Bearing Act, 1981. According to respondent No.1, there are policies to provide employment to the land oustees or their family members. Respondent No.1 was called for interview. After the interyiew, he was denied employment in lieu Qf acquisition of land of his family. Thereafter, many representations were made and when the query was made, the appellants informed the concerned Collector vide communication dated 26.12.2009 (Annexure-P-1 impugned in the writ petition) that the respondent No.1 cannot be provided employment because he was not eligible for the employment on account of prevailing scheme. Thereafter, the writ petition was filed. It was contended before the Writ Court that according to circular dated 18.01.1991 (Annexure-R/2-1) respondent N0.1 was not fulfilling the conditions of employment, therefore, he was denied employment. The learned Single Judge, vide para 9 of the impugned order, held that the aforesaid circular does not say that if a person does not have the above stated requirement for preference, he should be rejected on the ground of being deficient in the required eligibility. The learned Single Judge, therefore, disposed of the writ petition by . reserving the liberty to respondent No.1 to make representation to the appellants and directed that since the letter (Annexure-R/2-1) was misffead and misunderstood by the appellants/Coalfields Authorities -while considering the respondent No.1 for employment in lieu of acquisition of land, the case of the respondent No.1 shall be considered by appellants/Coalfields, afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. _1-' K»' W.A.NO. 542/2011 Mr. Sinha submits that the aforesaid circular was never misread. We gather from the record that the appellants have filed reply in the writ petition, but they never filed any policy which was prevailing for such consideration of the cases of the land oustees between 1981 to 1991, and only the above memo/letter dated 18.01.1991 (Annexure- R/2-1) was filed, which was a communication to the collector from their office. In the above facts and circumstances, we do not.find any infirmity in the directions issued by the learned Single Judge for consideration ofthe case of respondent No.1 afresh in accordance with law, which means in accordance with policy applicable in case of respondent No.1. The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge