SUDHIR CHANDRA MAHTO Vs. BCCL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common grievance of individual petitioner in this batch of cases is that though they are entitled to get employment under Land Looser Scheme of the respondent -Coal India Limited, which was also, acknowledged in the Minutes of the meeting dated 4.1.2008, employment has not been given to them and no reason has been assigned for hanging the matter in balance, for decades.

(2.) IT has been stated that for the purpose of setting of a township, the then State of Bihar had acquired 97.525 acres of land appertaining to Mouza -Karmatand, P.S. Baliapur, District -Dhanbad in L.A. Case no.11/85 -86. Out of the said lands, 32.525 acres of land belongs to the petitioners, who are inhabitants of village -Dhokra. The respondents -authorities, according to their policy decision, offered employment to 69 persons of village -Karmatand, but they discriminated the petitioners, who are residents of village -Dhokra. Employment has not been given to them till date. The petitioners raised their grievance through local M.L.A., made repeated requests and representations themselves, but the same fell on deaf ears of the respondents. Under the said compelling circumstance, the petitioners have ultimately knocked the door of this Court.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners' lands have been acquired and that the respondents have offered employment to some of the land loosers or their family member(s). According to the respondents, they have already decided to give further 26 employment but due to the dispute amongst the land loosers, the same has not been given.