✦ High Court of India

Pampa Shakha, W/o late Santosh Kumar Sakha, resident of Tetulmari Station Road, P.O. & v. 1. The Chairman, Coal India Limited, New Town, Rajarhat, P.O. & P.S.- Rajarhat, Dist

Case Details

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C ) No. 5470 of 2017 Pampa Shakha, W/o late Santosh Kumar Sakha, resident of Tetulmari Station Road, P.O. & P.S.- Tetulmari, Dist.- Dhanbad .......... Petitioner Versus 1. The Chairman, Coal India Limited, New Town, Rajarhat, P.O. & P.S.- Rajarhat, Dist.- Kolkata-700156 2. The Chairman –cum- Managing Director, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O,. & P.S.- Saraidhela, Dist.- Dhanbad-826005 3. General Manager (Estate), M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O,. & P.S.- Saraidhela, Dist.- Dhanbad-826005 4. The General Manager, Area III/ BCCL, Bilbera House, P.O.- Sonardih, P.S.- Sonardih, Dist.- Dhanbad- 828125 5. The Area Manager (ESTATE), BCCL Area III, Bilbera House, P.O.- Sonardih, P.S.- Sonardih, Dist.- Dhanbad- 828125 6. Debashish Chatterjee, son of Late Bhutnath Chatterjee, resident of Mahtatand, P.O.- Kharkhari, P.S.- Mahuda, Dist.- Dhanbad ........... Respondents

Legal Reasoning

For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Adv. : Mr. Jitendra Kr. Pasari, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, Adv. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the letter dated 15.02.2017; whereby and whereunder the concerned respondent has informed the petitioner that the employment /job cannot be given to the petitioner due to purchase of less than two Acres of land and as the compensation amount of the land has been paid in accordance with the then provisions of Bharat Coking 1 W.P.(C) No. 5470 of 2017 Coal Limited and further quashing the letter dated 22.07.2016 whereby and where under, the respondent informed the petitioner that the claim for employment /job cannot be considered and also for quashing the letter dated 24.02.2016 which are kept at Annexures 12, 10, 8. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the mother of the original petitioner sold 1.86 Acres of land Mouza- Kharkhari, Mouza no. 307, Khata no. 13 by registered sale deed no. 270 and 271 to BCCL in the year 1982 and at that time, there was a scheme of BCCL for giving employment of peace rated job to the persons, who sell their agricultural land of two Acres or non- agricultural lands of three Acres to BCCL. In the year 2012, a new Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy was introduced by the respondents, according to which, if there are several land losers and combined land lost by them is more than two Acres; then, a provision was made that the respondent may give appointment to any of them, mutually agreed between them, if the total length given by more than one person’s he is 2 Acres or more. 4. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to sell 15 Decimals of more land and the original petitioner filed an affidavit that he is ready and willing to sell 15 Decimals of land to BCCL and requested for employment which was denied hence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the denial of the employment to the petitioner is illegal. Therefore, the prayer as made in this writ petition be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the employment is offered by the respondents on the basis of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2012 if upon pooling of the lands of more than one person in total amounts to 2 Acre. But in the Circular, that was 2 W.P.(C) No. 5470 of 2017 prevalent in 1982, offer of the peace rated job was there is a land losers who should 2 Acres of agricultural land or 3 Acres of non-agricultural land but the circular prevalent in 1982 did not allow clubbing of the lands of the land losers and as the mother of the petitioner admittedly did not sell two Acres of land rather she sold less than two Acres of land , so as per the Circular, which was prevalent on 25.12.1979, the mother of the petitioner or original writ petitioner was not entitled to any peace rated job and as the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy 2012, came into force, but petitioner has not sold any land to the respondent thereafter, hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any employment either. It is therefore submitted that there is no illegality in the letters by which, the respondents refused to offer any employment to the original writ petitioner, hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submission made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that employment on the ground of purchasing a land can be given by a public authority only under the provisions of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement scheme. Admittedly, the mother of the original writ petitioner did not sell two Acres of land to make the mother of the original writ petitioner or the original writ petitioner entitled for any employment and undisputedly there was no provision of clubbing of land of the land losers to make them two Acres to get the benefit of employment in the year 1982 and same came into force only in the year 2012, under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2012. Admittedly, the writ petitioner or his ancestor has not sold any land to the respondent after the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy came into force in the year 2012. 3 W.P.(C) No. 5470 of 2017 7. Under such circumstances, this court do not find any illegality in the letters sought to be quashed by the petitioners, by which, the respondents have denied offering any employment to the original writ petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition being without any merit is dismissed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 23rd April, 2024 Smita /AFR (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 4 W.P.(C) No. 5470 of 2017

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments