DILIP KUMAR ROY Vs. EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner by a deed of sale executed on or about March 23, 1998 conveyed lands measuring about 2 acres to the respondent colliery (Annexure P-l). It is the case of the petitioner that at the material time there was in operation a scheme providing for appointment to such land losers or persons from whom land has been acquired by the company for its requirements. Annexure P-2 is the said scheme dated December, 1984. Annexure P-3 is said to be the scheme operating from April, 1991. Under the aforesaid scheme the requirements for providing employment is, inter alia, that one employment subject to a maximum of two employments from a family is to be granted in case where land acquired is more than 3 acres. In respect of lands purchased from January 1, 1985 and thereafter the eligibility for grant of appointment is that minimum 2 acres of land should have been purchased from a family. Appointment is to be given to the land loser or his nominee subject to upper age limit of 35 years and medical fitness.

(2.) Petitioner submitted an application in the prescribed form enclosing therewith required documents. It is however contended in the affidavit-in- opposition that the said application had been made to the Agent, Kuardih Colliery who is not the competent authority to consider the case for employment. According to the affidavit-in-opposition, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and/or the Director Personnel is the competent authority for providing employment. From the file produced by the respondent colliery it would appear from page 39 that the requisite Form 'B' was filled in by the Officers of the respondent colliery namely Agent/Manager. It bears the signature of the said two officers and beneath it the date mentioned is February 17, 2000. Also from page 58 it would appear that the Government Pleader gave clearance with respect to the land of the petitioner and opined that the same is free from any encumbrance. Also from page 53 it would appear that the agent of the colliery asked the police authorities as to whether there is any report to the contrary or any F.I.R. in respect of the petitioner. From page 60 of the file it would appear that the Deputy Estate Manager forwarded to the General Manager the employment file in respect of the petitioner duly recommended by Area Land Sale Committee. The Personal Manager informed the General Manager by his letter dated January 14, 2002 that petitioner is not eligible for employment under the land loser scheme. The reasons are to be found at page 61 of the noting sheet. It would be appropriate to extract the said reasons which are to the following effect:

(3.) By impugned order Annexure P-9 which has been questioned in the instant writ petition, the petitioner was informed that he is not eligible for employment under Land Loser Scheme as he has crossed the upper age limit of 35 years.