SAROJ BHATTACHARYA Vs. EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred challenging the order dtd. 9/6/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition being WPA 28330 of 2016.

(2.) Records would reveal that the appellants purchased 6.05 acres of land by deeds of sale dtd. 28/5/2002 and 3/7/2002. On the said plots of land, mining activities were being carried out by Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to s ECL) since 1/4/2001 by depillaring operations. Due to such mining activities, the surface land became unusable and in order to maintain production, ECL purchased the said plots of land from the appellants, by three registered deeds of sale executed on 31/3/2004 following the prevalent resettlement and rehabilitation policy. In furtherance of the said policy, the respondent no.3 by a memo dtd. 28/7/2005 forwarded a list relating to employment of 82 land losers having less than three years ownership to the Board for approval. Thereafter by a memo date 5/9/7/2013, the Area Land Cell comprising of the respondent no.4 and others forwarded a proposal for employment of the appellants and others in 2:1 ratio by amalgamating all packages but in vain. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants were constrained to prefer a writ petition being WP No. 15342 (W) of 2015. The Court by an order dtd. 22/7/2015 directed the respondent no. 4 to file a report in the form of an affidavit stating therein specifically 'as to when Eastern Coalfields Limited is likely to give effect to the contents of the note sheet dated 5 th July/9/7/2013'. Pursuant thereto, a report in the form of an affidavit was filed on behalf ECL stating inter alia that in terms of the note sheet dated 5th/9/7/2013, the matter has been put up before the headquarter and that recommendation was still awaited. Upon considering the said report, the writ petition was disposed of on 12/8/2015 directing the concerned authority of ECL at it's headquarter to take a decision. Pursuant to the said order, a decision was communicated vide memo dated 25th/30/9/2015 rejecting the appellants claim observing inter alia that 'the essential criteria is that on the date of use of the land, the land losers must have at least five years ownership over the land'. Challenging the said order and citing the instances of discrimination as practiced by the authorities, the appellants preferred a writ petition which was disposed of by the order impugned in the present appeal.

(3.) Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that ECL provided employment to various land losers having the same and identical pre-employment features like that of the appellants regarding 'ownership less than 3 years', as would be explicit from the memo dtd. 28/7/2005. Considering the issue of discrimination, as urged, placing reliance upon a memo dtd. 28/7/2005, the Court observed that 'it is not clear to the Court whether ultimately these candidates referred to in the memo dtd. 28/7/2005 were offered employment or not'. After arriving at such finding, the learned single Judge erred in law in reopening all issues and directing the respondent no.4 to 'revisit the issue afresh'.