NYAMAT KHAN Vs. WESTERN COAL FIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

(2.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the earlier round of litigation when a writ petition was filed by the petitioner which was registered as W.P. No.2265/2008, this Court directed the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in view of the decision of this Court dated 22.09.2011 passed in W.P. No.4473/2008 (Smt. Bhaggan Bai v. Western Coal Fields Limited and another). Vehemently, it has been argued by Shri Dubey that in the decision of Smt. Bhaggan Bai (AnnexureP/13) this Court has categorically directed to decide the case on the basis of representation filed by petitioner of that case to provide employment to one person in the family. Learned counsel submits that instead of considering the case of the petitioner for providing employment, representation has been considered in respect to providing monetary benefit only and thus he has been discriminated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the land of the petitioner was acquired, therefore, under the policy dated 22.12.1984 (Annexure-P/12) the petitioner is entitled for employment and the respondents are promissory estopped for not providing the employment. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon three decisions of Supreme Court they are Surya Narain Yadav and others v. Bihar State Electricity Board and others, 1985 AIR(SC) 941 Para 4, Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P. and others, 1992 AIR(SC) 920 para 2 and Babua Ram and others v. State of U.P. and another, 1995 2 SCC 689 para 6 & 7. It has also been put-forth by learned counsel that by considering the aforesaid policy several persons have been given employment.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for respondents submitted that earlier petition was for providing compensation and there was no relief to provide the employment in that petition. It is also propounded by him that said petition (W.P. No.2265/2008) was filed on the basis of representation which the petitioner earlier made vide Annexure-P/11 dated 05.12.2007 and since limited relief was sought in the representation as well as in the petition, therefore, now a U-turn cannot be taken by the petitioner to provide employment to his son. Learned counsel further submits that as per Clause (i) of the policy (Annexure-P/12) the standard norm should be one employment for the persons where three acres of un-irrigated land or two acres of irrigated land has been acquired. Learned counsel submits that admittedly the land 1.26 hectare which is equal to 3.11 acre un-irrigated land belongs to two brothers namely Nyamat Khan (present petitioner) and Liyakat Khan was acquired and therefore the petitioner was having only half share in the land which was acquired which comes to less than 3 acres of un-irrigated land. Thus, the petitioner cannot be permitted to ask to provide employment to his son when he became major in the year 2002 looking to the Clause (i) of the norms of the policy (Annexure-P/2) mentioning that who can be taken in the employment. Learned counsel has placed heavy reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Butu Prasad Kumbhar and others v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others, 1995 JabLJ 463. Learned Counsel is also placing reliance upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A. No.829/2010 (Chhabbilal v. Western Coal Field Ltd. & Others) decided on 26.10.2010 (Annexure-P/13). Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the Full Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in Ravindra Kumar v. District Magistrate, Agra and others, 2005 1 UPLBEC 118 (FB). Thus, learned counsel submitted that this petition be dismissed.