ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the letter-cum-order dtd. 6/1/2014 (Annexure P/7) passed by Dy. General Manager(Personnel), SECL, Kusmunda Area, whereby the petitioner has been disqualified for getting employment in lieu of acquisition of his land.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is owner of land bearing Khasra No.22/7, P.H.No.35, area 0.040 acres situated at Village-Churakhachar which is registered in the name of his grand-mother. The said land was acquired by the South Eastern Coalfields Limited and as per CG Rehabilitation Scheme 1991 and its amendment dtd. 21/12/1995, the petitioner submitted his nomination form along with requisite documents before the respondent-SECL. The petitioner's grand-mother also moved an application for correction of her land record before the Sub Divisional Officer on 3/1/2005. After due enquiry, respondent No.3/SDO (R), Katghora recommended the name of the petitioner for granting him employment in lieu of acquisition of his land. However, vide impugned order dtd. 6/1/2014 the Dy. General Manager (Personnel), SECL, Kusmunda Area rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that as per rules, the petitioner does not fall in the category of direct liner dependent of the deceased employee. Hence this petition for the following reliefs:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities is per se illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. The respondent/SECL acquired the land of the petitioner without granting him employment in contravention of the provisions of the Rehabilitation Scheme as the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991 and its amendment in the year 1995 specifically provide for employment of the land losers having title over the acquired land for more than 20 years. The petitioner had submitted all the requisite documents along with his nomination form before the respondent/SECL. The Collector in its enquiry report has specifically confirmed the title and ownership of the petitioner over the land acquired by the SECL and held him eligible for getting employment in lieu of acquisition of his land but the respondent authorities by the impugned order dtd. 6/1/2014 rejected the claim of the petitioner.