PAWAN KUMAR Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for employment as a displaced person as per scheme of rehabilitation.

(2.) The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief, is that in the year 1976, the respondents-CCL acquired 102 acres of lands belonging to raiyat - Bishun Dayal Sahu, the great grandfather of the petitioner, under the Coal Bearing Act. It has further been averred that said Bishun Dayal Sahu died leaving behind his two sons, namely, (1).Laldeo Sahu and (2).Ramchandra Sahu, who died leaving behind three sons each i.e. (1)Baso Sahu (2) Ramkishore Sahu and (3).Kanchan Sahu son of Late Laldeo Sahu and (1) Bigal Sahu, (2).Rameshwar Sahu and (3).Laxman Sahu all sons of Late Ramchandra Sahu. It has further been averred that amount of compensation as against the acquired land was paid to the land losers and as per the policy of rehabilitation of Dec., 1984, which came into effect from 01.01.1985, employment was also to be provided as per the Scheme floated by the respondents-company. It has further been averred that initially two persons, namely, Sri. Suresh Prasad Sahu and Sri. Aditya Prasad Sahu, being the nominees of (1) Bigal Sahu, (2).Rameshwar Sahu and (3).Laxman Sahu all sons of Late Ramchandra Sahu; were given employment. Later on, three more employments were given to nominees of (1). Baso Sahu (2). Ramkishore Sahu and (3). Kanchan Sahu son of Late Laldeo Sahu. At this juncture, it has been alleged that as per the uniform policy for offering employment under the land loser scheme, which came into effect from 01.01.1985, the standard norms have been fixed for one employment for three acres of non-irrigated land and employment of one person against each two acres of irrigated land. Further, para 2 of the Circular mentions that the norms may be reduced to two acres per person, if the person is matriculate or above and opts to join initially as an apprentice for a period of two years during which he will be paid a fixed stipend per month. The main dispute between the parties is that petitioner claim that Sri. Suresh Prasad Sahu and Sri. Aditya Prasad Sahu, have been appointed as an apprentice and one more employment is left out whereas respondents-CCL states that Sri. Suresh Prasad Sahu and Sri. Aditya Prasad Sahu though initially joined as apprentice but later on, on their request they have been absorbed/appointed as Clerk against three acres of land each, as such the petitioner has been denied employment. Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner represented before the respondents-authorities but did not yield any fruitful result. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of his grievances under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Heard Mr. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondents-CCL being assisted by Ms. Puja Kumari and Ms. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the respondents-CCL.