PAWAN KUMAR Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing the instant review application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for review and recall of judgment and order dtd. 22/6/2018 passed in W.P. (S) No. 28 of 2015.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order dtd. 22/6/2018 has been passed mainly on two counts. Firstly, against 6.01 acres of land Suresh Prasad Sahu and Aditya Prasad Sahu were given employment and further these appointees vide their written letter dtd. 16/8/1985 refused to join as apprentice hence they were absorbed/employed as Clerk Grade III and thereby they exhausted benefit of six acres of land. In this regard, it is submitted that so-called letter dtd. 16/8/1985 has never been brought on record and even otherwise also, the appointment letter to these persons i.e. Suresh Prasad Sahu and Aditya Prasad Sahu, were given much after this letter and the Opp. Party-Central Coalfields Limited in its note dtd. 26/3/1985 has mentioned that that the employment has been given against 5.69 1/6 acres of land and further employment has been made as an apprentice for two years on stipend basis on Clerk Grade. As a matter of fact, in the circular/policy of 1984 meant for land losers, which came into effect from 1/1/1985, though there is mention of scheme for employment as apprentice of one person against two acres of irrigated land but the amount to be paid during the period of apprentice has not been mentioned. For the reasons aforesaid, while considering the case of Suresh Prasad Sahu and Aditya Prasad Sahu, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, CCL sought clarification from Director (Personnel) and Director (Finance) and only after clarification obtained from Director (Personnel) and Director (Finance), said Suresh Prasad Sahu and Aditya Prasad Sahu were directed to be offered employment as Trainee on initial basic pay of Clerk Grade III for a period of two years, as evident from note-sheets dtd. 7/6/1985 to 23/9/1985 obtained by the petitioner through R.T.I Act and annexed with the present review application as Annexure 16 and annexed as 16 series to the rejoinder affidavit to counter affidavit in the writ application Hence, it is much clear that against four acres of land, Suresh Prasad Sahu and Aditya Prasad Sahu were given employment as apprentice. Since out of total land of 12 acres of land, only five employments were given then still one employment is still lying and basing on this fact even the case of the present petitioner was recommended by the authority of respondents/Opp. Parties. It has further been submitted from the documents of the respondents-CCL, it is quite apparent that they were given employment against 5.62 acres of land, then it is presumed that they have given employment against four acres of land (two employment) and only in case of complete six acres of lands, respondents-authorities can offer two employments in regular cadre and not in apprentice. Second ground for approaching the Court at a belated stage i.e. after lapse of about four decades of acquisition of land. In this regard, it has been submitted that the respondents-authorities vide letter dtd. 1/7/1991 admitted that land measuring 6.32 acres of land out of total 12.02 acres of land is still in dispute and immediately when the Competent Court of law made decision in favour of ancestors of petitioner, they approached before the authorities lastly all the representations made by the petitioner were considered by Samadhan Cell of Central Coalfields Limited and vide letter dtd. 5/8/2014, directed to consider the case of petitioner taking left over 2.01 acres of land. It has further been submitted that there was no partition deed in the petitioner's family.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that whole confusion has been crept in because of the misleading statement made in the counter affidavit and candidly speaking some of the annexures could not be forcefully placed, hence, the patent error that has crept in the impugned judgment be modified and clarified. In support of his submission, learned counsel further submits that the High Court being a Court of record under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, has a power and duty to correct its records being Court of superior jurisdiction as per the law laid down in the case of M.M. Thomas Vs. State of Kerala and Anr as reported in (2000) 1 SCC 666 and also in the United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Rajendra Singh and Ors as reported in (2000) 3 SCC 581 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2003) 8 SCC 648 South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of M.P and Ors wherein at paragraph 28, it has been held that no one shall suffer by an act of the court is not a rule confined to erroneous act of the court; the "act of the court" embraces within its sweep all such acts as to which the court may form an opinion in any legal proceedings that the Court would not have acted had it been correctly apprised of the facts and law.