JOHN MARIA Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD LTD. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was given employment by the Central Coalfield Limited (henceforth referred to as the "Coal Company") under the land loser's scheme in the year, 1993. Such employment was compensatory in nature, certain land of the appellant having been acquired for mining purpose by the coal company. Her service was however, subsequently terminated on 12/7/1999 on the ground that she did not have any right title and interest over the land in question. The subject-land is situated in the village Burmu (Khalari) in the district of Ranchi. The reason cited as the cause for termination of her service is denotification of the said land from the acquisition process. It is the State's stand that the subject-land stood recorded as "gairmajerua", as a consequence of which the acquisition proceeding stood withdrawn in respect thereof. Subsequently there has been several litigations in which the appellant writ-petitioner sought reinstatement, but we do not consider it necessary to refer to those litigations individually barring the ones which are relevant for adjudication of this appeal.

(2.) The appellant along with four other plaintiffs had instituted a title suit registered as Title Suit No. 227 of 2000 in the Court of Sub Judge-I, Ranchi. In the suit, in which both the State of Bihar and the Managing Director-cum-Chairman CCL were parties, the appellant's claim was for declaration of her along with that of the co-plaintiffs' right title and interest over the suit property. It was also claimed that the plaintiff nos. 4 and 5 in the suit continued to be in service of the coal company. The appellant before us was plaintiff no. 4 in the said suit whereas plaintiff no. 5 was one Mrs. Merry Rose Ekka. The suit was decided in favour of the plaintiffs therein and it was decreed and ordered that the plaintiffs were entitled to the reliefs as claimed for and the plaintiff nos. 4 and 5 were directed to be appointed by the coal company within a period of three months from the date of judgment. The Suit Court found that the plaintiffs had been able to prove and establish their valid right title and interest over the suit land. It was also held by the Suit Court that the plaintiffs were entitled to receive compensation and also entitled to their service. Subsequently, the appellant has been reinstated in service after the decree was passed on 17/11/2003.

(3.) In the present proceeding, the dispute is over payment of back wages to the appellant. The appellant had approached the learned First Court with prayer for back wages for the entire period commencing from the date of termination of her service to the date of her reinstatement. The learned First Court held that she could not be treated as working between 12/7/1999 and 12/8/2011, the latter being the date of her reinstatement. That finding, however, was given on the question of promotion. The learned First Court directed the payment of back wages from 2/9/2009 till 12/8/2011. The significance of 2/9/2009 is that an earlier writ petition seeking reinstatement was disposed of on that date directing the respondents to consider the claim of petitioner and take an appropriate decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order. In that writ petition registered as W.P.(S) No. 2612 of 2005, the writ petitioner had prayed for reinstatement in service.