Case: South Eastern Coalfields Ltd Vs. Prem Kumar Sharma

3. Respondent No.1-Prem Kumar Sharma filed a writ Petition before the High Court claiming appointment on the ground that he was a land loser. High Court by its order dated 8.8.2001 directed consideration by the sub-Divisional Officer. Since the sub-Divisional officer held that he was entitled to employment, a writ petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court. The High Court held that since the land of the respondent No. 1 had been acquired, he was entitled for compensatory appointment. The High Court gave the followingpetitioner is directed to extend the employment to the son/defendant as the case may be of respondent no.3, within a period of twelve months from today, on availability of first vacancy with the petitioner. In case no vacancy arises within the period, the petitioner shall create a post for the employment, in this regard.Questioning correctness of the judgment, a Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the appellant before the Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court modified the direction to the followingdue consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we direct the petitioner to consider the case of respondent No. 3 Prem Kumar Sharma for the employment to his son/dependent as the case may be whenever the vacancy arises."

Court's reasoning:
A bare perusal of the recommendations and the guidelines make the position clear that acquired area should be 3 acres of non-irrigated land or 2 acres of irrigated land. Because the acquired area is much less under the recommendation/guidelines, respondent was not entitled to any relief.