WRIT PETITION (C) No. 6 / S^" 12010 v. South Eastern Coal

Judgment

1. South Eastern Coal Field limited, Through Chairman Director, Cum Managin^ Basant ' Vihar, Seepath Road Bilaspur (C.G.). 2^ The Collector, District - ' Korba (C.G.)

3. Chief General Manager S.E.C.L., District-Korba (C.G.). <<"

4. The Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, S.C.E.L., District- Korba (.C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE ^26 OF THE'- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA "'*\. (Gj HJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.5187 QF 2010 PETITIONER Prabhat Kumar Mishra Versus RESPONDENTS South Eastern Coalfields Others Limited & Post for pronouncement of orders on the fy-\Say of February, 2013 Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.5187 OF 2010 PETITIONER Prabhat Kumar Mishra Versus RESPONDENTS South Eastern Coalfields Others Limited & (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : hlon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondents No.1, 3 & 4. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. General for the State/ respondent No.2. (Delivered on this _^7_fclay of February, 2013)

1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned communication dated 29.03.2010 (Annexure - P/10) whereunder the claim of the petitioner for grant of employment on account of acquisition of his land has been rejected. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with the rehabilitation policy dated

25.09.1991 (Annexure - P/7) and extend the benefit of employment to him within the stipulated period.

2. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, is that the petitioner is a resident of Korba district and he is graduate in B.Sc. and also pursuing M.C.A. course. The petitioner is the owner of the land bearing survey No. 119 admeasuring 0.05acres situated at Korba (for short "the land in dispute"). The petitioner purchased the land in dispute from one Jethu Ram in the year 1993 by registered sale deed (Annexure P/1). The land in dispute was acquired by the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (for short "the S.E.C.L.") in the year 1995 and the ^~-;w-"'/ \^ compensation was paid to the petitioner under the award dated

25.03.2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum- Land Acquisition Officer), Korba in Revenue Case No. 9/A-82/ 2003-04 (Annexure - P/2). As per the rehabilitation policy framed by the State Government, the petitioner is entitled to appointment in the S.E.C.L. in lieu of acquisition of the land in dispute for which the petitioner made a representation on 11 .08.2007 (Annexure - P/3), but the same does not fructify. The further case of the petitioner is that one similarly situated person namely; Nagendra Thakur, dependent of one Manoga Thakur, who is the purchaser of the land on the same date with that of the petitioner, has been provided employment in the S.E.C.L. by order dated 15/16.01.2004 (Annexure - P/4). The petitioner had filed a copy of sale deed executed between Jethu Ram and Manoga Thakur as Annexure - P/5. The petitioner sought certain information, under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which was provided to the petitioner by communication dated

16.06.2008 (Annexure - P/6). From the said documents, manifest that in case of the petitioner, the amended rehabilitation policy 1995 has been applied whereas the case of the petitioner was dealtwith underthe rehabilitation policy, 1991. According to the petitioner, the claims of all the land oustees prior to 1994 has been considered and they have been provided with the employment, but the case of the petitioner has not been considered only on the ground that his case has been forwarded to the appropriate authority in the year 1998. In fact, there is no fault on the part of the petitioner in making the claim. Even, the petitioner made a representation before Chairman-cum-Managing Director, S.E.C.L. on 10.01.2009 (Annexure - P/8) and when the same was not considered, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this \^ Court, being W.P.(C) No.4273 of 2009, which was disposed of by this Court on 12.08.2009 with the observation to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Thereafter, the respondent authorities rejected the claim of the petitioner and communicated the same to the petitioner by impugned letter dated

29.03.2010 (Annexure - P/10). When the representation of the petitioner was not considered properly, the petitioner preferred a contempt petition, being Contempt Case (C) No. 74 of 2010, which was disposed of by this Court as withdrawn by order dated

12.04.2010 (Annexure - P/11) with liberty to file a writ petition against the order passed by the concerned authority on 29.03.2010 and also for redressal of the other grievances. Hence, petition. Shri Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit the impugned action of the S.E.C.L. is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the provisions as contained in the rehabilitation policy, 1991. Shri Shuklawould further submit that the respondent authorities granted employment in case of similariy stated persons but the same benefit has not been extended to the petitioner. Shri Shukla would next submit that the stand of the S.E.C.L. stating that unless there is continuous ownership for decades, the candidate would not be entitled for appointment is absolutely baseless, because in case of Nagendra Thakur, appointment had been granted on the basis of sale deed of the year 1993. The representation ofthe petitioner has been rejected in a cavalier manner, without application of mind and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case in its later and spirit. 1i .,,s,^5S^^ On the other hand, Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing with Ms. Meera Jaiswal, learned counsel respondents No.1, 3 & 4 and Shri Thakur, learned Dy. Adv. General appearing for the State/respondent No.2 would submit that after considering all the aspects of the case of the petitioner has rightly been rejected his claim. The land acquisition proceedings are related to year 2005 whereas the petitioner raised his claim at a belated stage. According to clause 1 of the rehabilitation policy, 1991, the petitioner is not entitled to appointment in lieu of acquisition of the land in dispute, therefore, no interference is warranted and the petition may be dismissed.

9. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The petitioner has not specified in his pteadings about the actual date of acquisition of his land bearing khasra No. 119 admeasuring

0.05 acres situated at Korba, which was purchased by him from one Jethu Ram on 18.8.1993.

10. In the impugned order dated 29.3.2010 (Annexure - P/10), it was explained that the land of the petitioner was acquired under the award dated 25-3-2006. In case of Manoga Thakur he was completely disabled on account of acquisition of his land with house and, as such, under the provisions of the Rehabilitation Policy, 1991 he came under the qualification of land oustees, thus his dependant namely; Nagendra Thakur was granted employment also, in addition to the compensation. 11 In case of the petitioner, as per the return filed by the State, land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1995 and compensation was paid and, as such, the provisions ofthe Rehabilitation Policy, 1991 would be applicable. ?1 ./ •a^- ^%.

12. In view of the above, there is a dispute with regard to the date of the acquisition of land asto when the land of the petitioner was acquired. However, in the representation dated 10.1.2009 (Annexure - P/8), the petitioner has taken a stand that though the land was acquired in the year 1995, however, while passing the award for compensation by mistake the name of the petitioner was left out. Though, copy of the award, despite granting sufficient opportunities, has not been filed in this petition.

13. Having regard to the facts situation of the case, the Collector, Korba, is directed to find out the date of taking over the possession of the land of the petitioner and consider the application of the petitioner after affording opportunity of hearing to the SECL as well as the petitioner, and decide the issue asto which rehabilitation policy would be applicable. The Collector is further directed to consider asto whether the petitioner is entitled to employment also under the, then, prevailing rehabilitation policy at the time of acquisition of the land of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law and on its own merits, as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. Gowri Judge SatisbK.Agmhotn ._-T Sd/-