ARUN KUMAR PAL Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a nominated person of displaced family for Paradip Refinery Project of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties, more particularly opposite party no.8, to provide him employment under the Rehabilitation and Relief Plan 2002 and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of the Government of Odisha, 1998 under Annexure-1. The petitioner has further prayed to direct opposite party nos. 3 to 5 to take appropriate action for necessary compliance of the Plan/Policy vide Annexure-1 by opposite party nos. 6 to 8 and also to restrain opposite party nos. 6 to 8 to fill up the available vacancy under Junior Office Assistant-IV category prior to giving employment to the petitioner and make regular absorption of the petitioner in the establishment by giving such employment.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (for short 'IOCL'), is a Corporation created by the Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum, wherein the Union Government has more than 68% share capital. As such, the Corporation established its Refinery Project, a major Industrial project, at Paradip in the district of Jagatsinghpur, Odisha. The petitioner is under obligation to observe and comply with the policy, for Rehabilitation and Resettlement of displaced families, formulated by the State of Odisha for Major Industrial Projects. In the year 1998, opposite party no. 6 for setting up of its Paradip Refinery Unit at Paradip area acquired land measuring an area of Ac.3344.65 through IDCO (opposite party no-2). Due to acquisition of land, near about 143 families were displaced from their homestead land and many of them lost their agricultural land, the source of living. The petitioner's family lost their house, homestead land and more than 2/3rd of their agricultural land. Therefore, as per policy for Rehabilitation and Resettlement of persons/families displaced for establishment of Major Industrial Projects 1998 of Government of Odisha, which is applicable to IOCL, one of the family members of a displaced family is entitled to be extended employment assistance by the industrial project authority. Needless to say, the IOCL authorities have also adopted the said policy of the Government of Odisha. Out of 143 displaced families, the nominees of 94 families opted for cash benefit in lieu of employment and the authorities have fulfilled the same.

(3.) Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing along with Mr. C. R. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the nominated person of one of the 143 displaced families for establishment of Paradip Refinery of IOCL, on acquisition of their agriculture and homestead land. He has not received any compensation for the same and opted for other mode, i.e. giving him employment. Unfortunately, he has not been provided with an employment as per the Rehabilitation Resettlement Plan/ Policy formulated by the Government of Odisha under Annexure-1, which has been adopted by the IOCL. Merely giving engagement on contractual basis under outsourcing agency cannot be said that the purpose of the policy has been fulfilled. Consequentially, he seeks direction for regular absorption of the petitioner as per the Rehabilitation Resettlement Plan/ Policy formulated by the Government of Odisha under Annexure-1, duly adopted by the IOCL.