JUSTICE v. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 7547 of 2015 Grantha Pasayat …. Petitioner Mr. S. Behera, Advocate -versus- …. Opposite Parties 1. State of Orissa 2. Mahanadi Coal Field Limited represented through its Chief General Manager, Jharsuguda 3. General Manager, M.C.L., Jharsuguda 4. Collector and District Magistrate, Jharsuguda 5. Tahasildar, Lakhanpur, Dist. Jharsuguda
Legal Reasoning
Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA Mr. D. Mohanty, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No.
Decision
ORDER 18.08.2025 07. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. 2. This is an application seeking appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. For the Page 1 of 6 sake of brevity, the prayer made in the Writ Petition is culled out hereunder; “The petitioner therefore most humbly prays that this Hon’ble court be graciously pleased to issue rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the petitioner shall not be extended the benefit of rehabilitation rehabilitation appointment under the opposite party no. 2 immediately. scheme and And if the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause to make the said issuance of an appropriate writ/s, order/s, direction/s as deemed fit and proper; rule absolute by And / or to pass such other order/s, direction/s as this Hon’ble court deemed just, equitable and proper facts and the circumstances of the present case. xxx xxx xxx” in 3. In this case, the grievance is primarily against the authorities of Mahanadi Coal Field Ltd., since it is submitted that the Petitioner’s father is a land oustee and as such he or his nominee is entitled to appointment, as per the scheme. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Mahanadi Coal Field Ltd controverting the allegations and the stand of the Mahanadi Coal Field Ltd, which is Page 2 of 6 germane for just adjudication, has been indicated in paragraphs-7 and 9 of the counter affidavit, which read thus; “xxx xxx xxx 7. That the averments made in the Para-4 & 5 of the Writ Petition are disputed and denied. It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner has approached the answering opposite party on dated 15.04.2011 and has requested for the employment in respect of the scheme. It is submitted that the answering opposite party disposed the application made by the Petitioner as he is not eligible under the said scheme as because against the said land of Ac.2.00 one Jatartha Pasayat S/o. Bajanath Pashayat @ Baidyanath Pasayat, the brother of the Petitioner provided employment vide No. SECL/GM/IBV/PER/13-B/29087 dated 8/9.09.1988 on the basis of the solemn declaration and agreement submitted by Sri.Bajanath Pasyat as no rehabilitation guidelines was existed at the relevant point of time. It is important to mention here that the brother of the Petitioner who were employed in the the rehabilitation benefit, has declared that in appointment letter that “that neither myself nor any one related to me would have any claim in future in respect of employment of any person other than the nominee above on the said consideration.” It is respectfully submitted that answering Opp.Party under Page 3 of 6 forwarded the benefit under the scheme is already given to the brother of the Petitioner and again sought for the same benefit under the same stand is illegal and not maintainable in eye of law. xxx xxx xxx 8. That the averments made in the Para-7 9. to 9 of the Writ Petition are disputed and denied. It is respectfully submitted that on receipt of the application dated 15.04.2011, Tahasildar, Lakhanpur was requested to verify the landed property of the ROR Holder in the Lakhanpur Tahasil and in the reply Tahasildar, Lakhanpur has the property verification report in respect of Bajanatha Pasayat, the Petitioner of Bandhabahal which has been received in the office of the Opp. Party on 25.10.2011 and as per the report, he has Ac.0.05 dec. Gharabari Kisam land in Khata No. 101/45, Plot No. 71/1042 at Bandabahal. It is important to submit here that neither the homestead land nor the dwelling house of Bajanatha Pasayat has been affected for MCL and is not displaced, as such he is not eligible for resettlement plot in the resettlement site. It is pertinent to mention here that the total area of Ac.10.10 dec., Patita Kisam land in plot No.73 in Government M.S.Khata No.104 of Mouza Bandabahal, have been given advance possession the Sub-Area Manager, Bandabahal and over the said plot, five(5) father of the to Page 4 of 6 persons including Bajanatha Pasayat, S/o. Dhruba Pasayat have been granted lease patta @ Ac.2.00 each and (1) Jatartha Pasayat S/o. Bajanath Pasyat, (2) Digri Marai S/o. Mitu Marai, (3) Padman Bhainsa S/o. Bhagirathi Bhainsa (4) Dayanidhi Turi S/o. Vikram Turi & (5) Harishankar Bhainsal S/o. Dasarath Bhainsal, have also been provided employment in the same footing as has been given to Jatartha Pasayat and related to lease Khata no. 101/08, 101/10, 101/12, 101/13 & 101/11 of Mouza Bandhabahal, respectively in spite of for in the approved Cat. C enlisted employment letter vide communicated no.MCL/GM(L&R)/2012/359 dated 25.06.2012, he has other land of Ac.0.05 dec Gharabari kisam land in Khata No. 101/45, Plot No. 71/1042 at Bandabahal. As he is not losing total home stead land and not a displaced family, therefore he is not coming under the criteria of Cat. C. of R & R Policy, 1989 as such he is not eligible for employment. Copy of the report of learned Tahasidar, Lakhanpur is annexed here to and marked as Annexure-C/3. xxx xxx xxx” list 5. On a bare perusal of the recitals of the paragraph-7 of the counter, it is seen that one Mr. Jatartha Pasayat, who was son of the land oustee Bajanath Pashayat @ Baidyanath Pasayat and the Page 5 of 6 brother of the present Petitioner, was employed under the MCL as per the nomination of the land oustee. 6. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the present Writ Petition. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. (V. Narasingh) Judge Santoshi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Aug-2025 12:54:06 Page 6 of 6