NAZRUL ANSARI Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three writ petitions, involving common questions, were heard at length and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) MR . Sumit Gadodia, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the respondents be directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for their appointment, as they are in displaced person category (i) and their names were included in the list of 207 persons sent by the Director Project Land Rehabilitation (DPLR), Bokaro Steel City, respondent No. 2 to the Steel Authority of India Limited -respondent No. 1, and therefore they are entitled to be considered in view of specific directions given by this Court in LPA Nos. 161 and 162 of 1996 (R) as well as in MJC No. 139 of 1999(R). He further submitted that one member of each displaced family is to be given employment.

(3.) MR . Rajiv Ranjan, appearing for the respondents, submitted that these writ petitions has to be dismissed in view of the Division Bench judgment reported in Steel Authority of India Limited v. Jamuna Prasad Mahto etc., and also the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Debu Lal Mahto, (supra). He further submitted that the father/brother of the petitioners, were already given employment as displaced persons.