r ^.^ v^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JU'DICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH: BlLASpUR. Writ petition No^>S3 2^2004. pETITIONER RBSpONDENTS ^-y/ ^>^?L/' ^^ ^z ^ f :rr,^. r^\ <'1"^-^ ^ " \ \-/' w n w Toranlal S/o Mehtar Dhhemar, aged aboat 33 years/Pv/o village Basing^ P.S. Nandini Nagar, Distt. mrg (CG) ver s a s Union of India through $~ l^ The Secretary^ Ministry of Steel Sc Mines Department of Steel Udyog Bhavan,, New Delht - 110001. 2^ The Chairman Steel Authority of India Ltd^ Ispat Bhavan^ Lodhi F-oady New Delhi^ 3« The Managing Director Bhilai Steel Plant Ispat Bhavan, Bhilal B"/iDistt. Durg (C.G.). 4» Sanat Kumar @ Sanad S/o Birajhoo Ram, Caste Sahoo, aged aboat 42 years, R/o village Hirri, P^S^ Pulgaon, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 5, State of Chhattisgarh Throagh : Collector, Qjrg (C^o^) fCT P2TITION UNDai ARTIGLE 226/22.7_.PF__C:pNSTI^^^^^ ^^^ a ''&y- ^";^ ^\..^^<^J~ \pljo^-^ u 0IA. FOR ISSUAiM'CEOF NR.IT IN THE NA'IIJ&vS OF MANDAMJS. OR JDERS -OR. DIR2CTIGN3 -: On behalf of the petitloner» the follow-ing is ibmitted iTiost respectfally ;- . ,. <.contd^ , ., ; yw? m-t iWS ~^£^^S^S:^-:9;:'^ 9K K ,^ 'iFilli 1 iff :IIi ra lr si ia i II I.IS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition No. 3592 of 2004 PEtITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Toranlai The Secretary, Ministry of Steel ,& Mines and others. Shri Uttam Pandey counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Smitha Ghai counsel for the respondent No.1 Shri Goutam Bhaduri counsel for respondent Nos. 2& 3 Shri Ajit Singh PL fbr respondent No.5 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE COJMSTITUTION OF INDIA OR D E R (13.09.2010) Grievance of the petitioner is that 4.48 acres of tand betonging t(^ his maternai grand father late Pulu Rarn was acquired by th^ respondent - Steel Authority of India Ltd. in the year 1957. After the petitioner attained the age of majority .on 20.05.1988, an application was filed by him seeking appointment in the capacity of legal heir/dependant ofthe displaced person but it was not given to him. 2. Case of the petitioner is that as soon as he attained majority on 20.05.1988, his name was registered in the Employment Exchang^ Office and a registration number was given to him. On 26.5.1988Ji| •j, information was sent to the petitioner to the effect that pursuant to thes' policy of the Steel Authority of India Ltd., respondent No.4 Sanaf Kumar Sahu claiming himself to be the legal heir/dependant of Pulu Ram had already been given appointment. It has been further put forth by the petitioner that as soon as he came to know about the illegal appointment of respondent No.4, he made a complaint before respondent No.3 and Police Station, Bhilai Bhatti seeking removal of respondent No.4. According to the petitioner, vide Annexure P-2 dated , 29.4.1989 respondent No.4 was punished but instead of terminating his services, only the pay was reduced by two stages for a period of !ll: Ei K. !£;.!-. m s: !•; l]i tjl's' ii:-^ IIIllil two years. He further submits that ultimately when respondent No.^ was convicted bya Criminal Court, his services came to be terminated on 2.6.2003. It is submitted that on 8.12.1997 he filed a Civil Suit foii declaration with respect to his entitlement to get the employment as s| displaced person in which the Court had categorically declared th^! petitioner to be entitled for employment being a displaced person. It is further submitted that subsequently in the month of October, 1989 fhel, respondent - Steel Authority of India Ltd. had adopted the policy of Union of India with prospective effect, according to which a decisio^i.m was taken not to give any employment to the legal heir or dependant,,of|N such displaced persons. It is submittedon behalf of the petitioner tha^| the petitioner had made the application for employment on 20.05.1988 whereas the policy was adopted by the Steel Authority of India Ltd. in the year 1989 and since the said policy was not given retrospectiv^; effect, the petitioner is entitled for employment. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that had the respondents 2 & 3 taken prompi , ;action against respondent No.4, the petitioner would have got thej employment some time in the year 1989-90. It is argued that as per) Annexure R-3, in stead of imposing minor penalty, respondent Nos. 2J!, & 3 were required to straightaway terminate the services of respond^nfj No.4 and by not doing so the Steel Authority of India Ltd. has not onl\< ^ taken away the valuable right of the petitioner but has also the stand of respondent No.4 who admittedly was not entitted tq , i continue in the Job. It is further submitted that prospectivity of th^' policy of 1989. Annexure R-2 has also been declared by this Court in writAppeal No.253/08, orderdated29March,2010. | 3. On the other hand refuting the contention of the counsel for the petitioner it has been argued by the counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & ^ i; thatearlier almost forthe same reliefthe petitioner had filed a Civil Sui||^ in the year 1997 which was dismissed by the competent Court of Civi| | | Jurisdiction on 17.3.2003 (Annexure P-4) and as the petitioner has not assailed the judgment and decree of the said suit before the highei+ , forum, the same has attained finality and thus has a binding effect on, everyone. He further submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed ;:i:.;: /;'ll l ^•^'iK .•:K -K^ ^ •ul •M ';i'. ^ I.^rl^' B:!l IE:; -—3^ on the ground of delay and laches because on 20.05.1988 thq petitioner had filed an application seeking appointment being a legaf heir/dependant of displaced person. He further submits that it is n'o| the case where respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have not considered the case ol displaced persons in respect of the land owned by Pulu Ram. He| submits that as respondent No.4 had submitted his claim being alega| heir/dependant of Pulu Ram, he was appointed in the Bhilai Steel Plahf on 26..5.1985. It has been further argued that the said claim of givin^ appointment to the legal heir/dependant of displaced persons was withdrawn by respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 with effect from 4.10.1989 anc| itherefore the petitioner could not be appointed. Hesubmits that respondent No.4 was already working as N.M.R Khalashi on the basisj of Land Acquisition Certificate issued by the Collector, Durg and tha| too when the Employment Officer, Durg had sponsored the name,;6^ respondent No.4, there was nothing wrongon the partof respond^nfj Nos. 2 & 3 in giving appointment to respondent No.4. According to the respondent Nos.2 & 3, the services of respondent No.4 were ultimately terminated on 2.6.2003 and at that belated stage th^i petitioner could not be given employment. He further submits thaf ! since there was no provision for providing employment to two person^ for one Land Acquisition Certificate, the petitioner was rightly deniecj, the appointment. Counsel for the respondents furthersubmit that;irj atmost similar situation, Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Cour^l has held that the belated claims cannot be considered after expiry o^j! number of years. In the case in hand also, the petition suffered from delay and laches and therefore the petitioner is not entitled foran\t relief. 4. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. ; 5. From the record it is clear that the petitioner is claiming himself, to be the maternal grand son of Pulu Ram whose 4.48 acres of lai|ic| was acquired sometime in the year 1955-56. For the first time he filec) | an apptication seeking appointment on 20.05.1988 but on 26.5.198^ respondent No.4 had already secured the employment being a lega| '^m 11. ^'M m- !«. ••9ii"fib-^ isw. •K- :Mi !tft IIIB •^ ^ ,,i"-'l-:,. j:i;ii:..ili1 ^f. .i^ill :' \ -'WM-' ^"^•^ \^M rn^ -^- Iheir.of displaced person Pulu Ram and in steadof filing a petitiorjj before this Court the petitioner was simply waiting for the removal|c| respondent No.4 from the service by the competent authority. Thou||| the petitioner has stated in the writ petition that he was told by tl|l|; authority concerned that until and unless respondent No.4 wa^ removed, the case of the petitioner would not be considered fotf; appointment. Had the petitioner been so much desirous to get the| appointment, he could have filed the petition before this Court at th^ earliest. Not only this, the Civil Suit filed by the petitioner on 8.12.1997J for declaration has also been dismissed on 17.3.2003 vide Annexure! P-4 by the competent Court on the ground of limitation and in stead o| i' . • •. • • . .•.•'' • '• • . - • . •. ' . • . .. .; • ! .l'; ^ssailing the said judgment and decree before the higher forum,:t^ petitioner chose to keep quiet and later to file a writ petition. This CpLir||| | ; ^&[i^ finds no substance in the argument of the counsel for the petitioner tha^l'l jl as the finding has been given in the said Civil Suit Annexure P-4 in paragraph 10 holding the petitioner entitled for job on accountof th^ j,i acquisition of 4.48 acres of land, he should have been given the sam€!;| ; forthe reason that ultimately as the said suit itself has been dismissedj ;;;, the petitioner cannot takeany advantage of the finding given inthe! ! iCivilSuit. Moreover, from the record it appears that the petitioner was more interested to have an action against respondent No.4 tharj |! pursuing his claim before the competent Court and that is why |e| waited for his removal from service. Had the petitioner been so muc^ aggrieved with his not getting appointment, he could have filed ^ petition for that before this Court at the earliest or could have assailed [ the judgment and decree of the Civil Suit before the higher forum. In ; the first instance,.as a matter of public policy, a concession ofth^lj nature in the matter relating to grant of employment to the particular' ' class ofso-called displaced persons could not continue for an indefinitd period of time. Accordingly in respect of the displacement which had. taken place in theyear 1955-56, no claim could be sustained in th^i|^ ..?.'. ^1.11^.: year 1988 irrespective of the fact whether at the relevant time't|i^||j petitioner was minor. If the scheme was there some other legal heirfO^j jj dependant of Pulu Ram could have approached respondent Nos. 2& 3 for securing the job. Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 cannot be blamed forl, 11.1, '^M iss:^ tW: '^^^ ;^£5-^:^ t^KP- -^~- anything because in the year 1985 itself, on the basis of Land Acquisition Certificate issued by the Collector, Durg which was duiy sponsored by the Employment Officer, Durg, the respondentNo.4 was| given employment on the basis of the existing policy of respondenl Nos. 1, 2 & 3. Furthermore, Division Bench of theMadhya Prades^ High Court has already held in Writ Petition No. 4015 of 1989 ir( Paragraph 5 as under: :,i .!„: "....In the first instance, 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. Accordingly, in respect of 'displacement' which had taken place in the year 1957, no claim could be sustained in the year 1987 i.e. after a gap of about 30 years..." fj :!!i:. ;; ll1:.'! :.t: ^' .^•:[; '1|| •^'M. ^'^ :,),: „•.;; .yii- '^w: :'^:?j:t B' '*1 "^'^: More so, the petitioner cannot draw any benefit of the judgment dated 29th March, 2010 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.253 of 20€)^ because by the said order nothing has been adjudicated in favour|o^|f; the petitioner and the subject matter hefore the Division Bench wa^§|jv chalienge to an interim order passed by this Court in the present Wrif 1 ; Petition. |l l1^11!'! 6. In view of above, the petition does not have any merit anc|. therefore the same is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissecf accordingly. i 7. It is an unfortunate case where the petitioner could not get ar< employment being legat heir/dependant of the displaced person bu|^ facts and circumstances ofthe case are as such that this Court cartn|0l[ll; li:..!':i.::1 grant any relief to him. If the petitioner so desires, he may approa^ | respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and in turn if the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 would • be at liberty to consider the case of the petitioner sympatheticallyj ,, afresh, may pass a suitable order. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge •II ;llr'i''••". -111 m- i'M -Itfi