The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 3310 of 2018 Mahendra Kisku … … … PETITIONER - V E R S U S - 1. Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC), a Statutory Corporation, having its office at DVC Tower, VIP Road, Kolkata, West Bengal. 2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Damodar Valley Corporation, having its office at Bhawani Bhawan, Alipur, Kolkata, West Bengal – 700027 3. S.C. Sinha, Senior Manager (HR), Damodar Valley Corporation, Maithon, P.O. – Maithon Dam, Dhanbad 4. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand, Ranchi … … … RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK For the Petitioner : Dr. Malay Kumar Laik, Sr. Advocate
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Manjushri Patra, Advocate For the Respondent No.4: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, AC to Sr. SC-II For the DVC : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Ms. Tanya Rai, Advocate 12/09.08.2023 Heard Dr. M.K. Laik, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, AC to learned Sr. SC- II appearing on behalf of the State; and Mr. Srijit Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Damodar Valley Corporation. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the letter dated 12.06.2018, issued under the signature of respondent no. 3 and further for a direction upon the respondents to give employment to the petitioner. Dr. M.K. Laik, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner’s father Late Mihir Kumar Kisku was son of one of the land looser and awardee of compensation against a total area of 01 Acre 265 Decimals of land, falling within P.S. – Nirsa, P.O. – Madanpur, Mouza – Majhladih, district – Dhanbad. The said land was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of construction of Maithon Dam and a Scheme was floated for offering employment of land loosers, their dependents and heirs. 2. 3. RC 2 Learned Sr. Counsel further argues that the grandfather of the petitioner namely Late Shambhu Nath Kisku was the awardee of compensation and petitioner being grand son and descendent of Late awardee Shambhu Nath Kisku, was entitled to get employment in the office of the respondent. Learned Sr. Counsel further argues that Mihir Kumar Kisku was father of the present petitioner and son of Shambhu Nath Kisku (awardee of compensation), Being son of the land looser Mihir Kumar Kisku, for the purpose of appointment in the office of the respondents, offered his name before the respondents and his name was duly enlisted in the list of persons selected for appointment in the published list of 788 persons. Several representations were filed by the petitioner as well as his father, but no heed was paid and no job was offered to them. 4. Learned Sr. Counsel further argues that when representation filed by the petitioner and his father were not considered, they had no option but to knock the door of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court
Decision
through their Union and the said writ petition was disposed of holding therein that those 91 persons were entitled for being absorbed by respondents and further directed the DVC to absorb them without any further delay. The appeal preferred by the DVC also stood dismissed before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. Thereafter, the DVC came up with a Circular dated 06.04.1990 clearly mentioning therein that one person of a family, either son or the grandson of the originally displaced person could be considered for employment in lieu of land taken by the DVC for their Project. Drawing attention towards the order passed in the Contempt Application filed before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, learned Sr. Counsel argues that direction was given to the DVC whereby DVC was restrained from making any appointment in future until they absorb 91 person (petitioners in the said writ petition). Out of 91 persons, 4 were planed in the panel for appointment. However, DVC filed Civil Appeal no. 1757 of 1992, arising out of SLP (C) No. 4204 of 1992 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the respondents to add RC 3 name of aggrieved persons and as such, total number of beneficiaries increased up to 788. Thereafter, the respondents were liable to appoint the persons in the list of 788. Petitioner being the intervener in the said Civil Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court prayed therein for a direction upon the DVC to appoint him as per their own policy decision and orders passed by the Hon’ble Court. However, when appointment was not given to the petitioner, he filed representation before the DVC on 13.08.2015, but no heed was paid to the same. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred W.P.(S) No. 1774 of 2016 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of on 10.04.2018 with a direction upon the DVC to give appointment to the petitioner within a period of three weeks, if he was found fit for appointment. Petitioner again filed representation before the respondents but the same was turned down vide letter dated 12.06.2018 clearly mentioning therein that they were unable to provide any employment to the petitioner. 5. Learned Sr. Counsel argues that it is a surprising case that in spite of their own policy decision and various orders of the Hon’ble Courts and in spite of several representations, petitioner has been harassed and has not been provided employment. Petitioner should not have been denied from getting employment in view of specific orders and direction of the Courts. Petitioner and his ancestors have lost their land and even then none of the family members have been given employment by the respondents - DVC. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents – DVC. Mr. Srijit Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents admits that earlier the writ petition was disposed of in light of orders of Hon’ble Apex Court and assurance was given by the DVC that they will look into the matter and reasoned order shall be passed in accordance with law. The respondents have duly considered the matter and thereafter passed the reasoned order rejecting claim of the petitioner. Drawing attention towards the reasoned order (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), learned counsel submits that the 6. 7. RC 4 original land awardee Late Shambhu Nath Kisku nominated his son Late Mihir Kumar Kisku, so he was empaneled as displaced person and his name was figured at Sl. No. 109 in the recast panel of displaced persons of Maithon Dam Project. Consequent upon that, Late Mihir Kumar Kisku was offered job vide letter no. M-PL/48 – 471, dated 29.12.2000 but said Late Kisku, vide his letter dated 20.01.2001 refused/ declined the employment due to old age and requested for employment of his brother Shri Misir Kisku under the displaced category in place of himself. However, as per the provision of said Circular dated 06.04.1990, it was mandatory that the original land looser can nominate his legal heir for employment and as such the nomination cannot be changed in any circumstances. Learned counsel further submits that after demise of Mihir Kumar Kisku on 04.07.2006, his wife Smt. Sarala Kisku applied for compensation in lieu of employment in the year 2007 but the said request was not considered on the basis of rules and regulations of DVC. There is no merit in the instant writ petition and as such the same is fit to be dismissed. Learned counsel further submits that the continuous process of appointment under the land looser category/Scheme has deprived the Institution like DVC to appoint people through open advertisement from across the country on the basis of requisite skill and other criteria after giving opportunity to deserving candidates. Learned counsel further submits that continuous appointment under the land looser category has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 264 of 2004 [Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Jamuna Prasad Mahto and another]. 8. Having heard counsel for the parties and considering facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merits in the instant writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The process of appointment cannot be continued for long. The land was acquired and due compensation was awarded for the same. The suitable persons were also awarded appointment under the land looser scheme of the Government. However, the list of such persons who were in waiting RC 5 list for appointment, could not be completed. However, the court cannot shut its eyes to the aspect that such appointment under the land looser scheme cannot continue for several decades. Generations have passed and still the dependents are claiming for appointment which has resulted with undue pressure upon the Management and suitable persons could not be called for appointment for want of employment against the suitable vacant seats. 9. In view of facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, this writ petition stands dismissed. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC