SNEHA KUMAR PRADHAN Vs. MAHANADI COALIFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ applications two brothers, who were given employment in the Mahanadi Coalfields Limited because of acquisition of their land, challenge their order of transfer dated 15.9.2009.

(2.) The villagers of the petitioners' village were agitating against the company for non-providing suitable homestead lands as assured by it at the time of acquisition of their lands and houses for the purpose of Coal Mines. Such agitation was continued for more than two decades, but the opposite parties are not taking any decision on the same. It is further pleaded by them that the services of the petitioners were terminated on 28.12.2006 on the ground that they have not vacated their houses in the aforesaid area, but later on, on 5.1.2007, such termination orders were withdrawn. It is further contended that at present there are twenty sanctioned and vacant posts lying with the M.C.L. and in spite of such vacant posts, the petitioners have been transferred to Northern Coalfields Limited Singrauli and CMPDIL, Ranchi. It is submitted by the petitioners that such transfer of the petitioners from one company to another is violative of Clause 21.4 of the Standing Orders of the Company and, therefore, the same should be quashed.

(3.) The opposite parties have filed their counter affidavit in this case, inter alia, pleading that the petitioners have already been relieved on 17.9.2009, but they have suppressed this fact in the writ application. It is further pleaded that in the appointment letter dated 16.6.1989 it is clearly mentioned that the petitioners can be transferred to any other establishment of the SECL (now MCL) or any other establishment/Colliery of Coal India limited in any part of India. It is admitted by the opposite parties that the petitioners were appointed as Badali workers, category-1, because of acquisition of their lands for mining purpose. However, the pleadings are silent regarding payment of compensation to the petitioners The opposite parties however claim that the petitioners have been provided with Ac.0.10 decs, of land each for constructing their own houses. The specific plea of the opposite parties is that the petitioners, who have been appointed under the Rehabilitation Scheme did not vacate their houses as well as instigated the other villagers of Chharia to agitate against the M.C.L., to obstruct the mining operations. On various occasions, the petitioners were warned and ultimately their services were terminated, because they violated the terms and conditions of the appointment order. However, the company reinstated the petitioners on 5.1.2007 after the petitioners gave undertaking that they would comply with the conditions mentioned in the appointment letter. It is further pleaded that in spite of the liberal attitude of the MCL by reinstating the petitioners, the petitioners continued to remain in their houses by subletting the same at village Chharia and continued to instigate the villagers to agitate against the MCL. It is submitted that though the opposite parties have taken a liberal attitude against the petitioner and his brothers, the petitioners continued to violate the conditions mentioned in the appointment order and instigate the villagers to agitate against the MCL. The petitioners have been transferred to MCL on administrative ground. It is pleaded by the opposite parties that Clause 21.4 of the Standing Order has no bearing in this case. Therefore, the opposite parties pray that the writ application be dismissed.