Writ petition seeking appointment in lieu of land acquisition compensation for petitioner, married in 1992, filed in 2010. Court rejected claim noting appointment is a concession, not a right, and petitioner's long delay precludes relief.
Motion dismissed; petitioner not entitled to appointment or compensation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
^^— •w
CT»JH.S-HI^_GO^R2' OF JUDIOA?[JHE AT JAB.ALPITa
Writ Pefeitlon mi^^^pf 1999.
PETITIONSH ?
Madhuri Bo/., D/o Shri ^aalchandra Na^aKoy, aged about sz- years, B/o Bamd&<3 Nagar, Tikar%>ara» Bilaspur(M«P.).
-^
J/s.
RIiSPOKDMT"G3 s
,^.1, South Sag-bem. Goalflelds Ltdo) throu^i Its a-iairmancum^MaiT.aging Directopg Segpat Boad, Bila.spur(M*P,),
2» Sub Area MaTiager, Oilriniiri Gollieazy? Soufch Saste2n Ooalfields Ltd» 9 Ghirlmlri, District 3ur@ija(MoP).
PETIIIOTT UNDER AR'FIOLE 226/227 OF ITIE CONSriIU'?ION 2I.-:mDIA.^.R».KSUMCS«OF»WBI^ol-CEBIIO^lA^!^I5^^
MW _QEIEa JSPPBOpaiATE DIBEC'IIONS/ORDERS.
| >° 1 ^ f3 N ^ ^<? ^ ^s 1 p* l'; r>^ §ig IIJ 8 I . S i M 8 ^ 1 ^ ^,. s s v ^' ^ I ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ '^Il' ^ ^ ^ ^? ,P ^ ?4 s <i's g g ^: .,.? J:'? 1 llll a s alil s' @ ^ f et ^ ^ i !' t 1 ^ j? 3 S ss ^ III ^ j^ & ?'$ ie |
|
|---|---|
| ^, | ^ |
.-^.
'^^.
^.P.5L
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
p,C1
(Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker)
WritPetition No. 1882 of 1999
PETITIONER
Madhuri Roy
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS
SECL and others
Post for pronouncement of order on ^ .10.2010
Sd/-
Pritinker Diwaker
Judge
1
^F$,
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR
(Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker)
Writ Petition No. 1882 of 1999
PETITIONER
Madhuri Roy
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS
SECL and others
Ms. Sharmila Singhai counsel for the petitioner. Shri Abhishek Sinha counsel for respondents 1 &2.
WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE226/227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
ORDER
(6.10.2010)
Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 14.7.1998 (Annexure P-10) rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment in lieu of acquisition of the land belonging to the father of the petitioner. Petitioner has also prayed that she be awarded compensation for not giving her appointment in due course oftime. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that land of the father of the petitioner namely Amal Chandra Naha Roy situated at village Bhandar Dehi, Pachpedi, Chirmiri, was acquired by the respondent-SECLand in lieu of that monetary compensation was also given to him. Case of the petitioner is that in view of the policy of the SECL (Annexure P-1), the respondent - SECL is under obligation to provide employment to one of the family members of the displaced family.
v^
^.
decree dated 14.12.1994. Againstthe judgment and decree dated 14.12.1994 an appeal was preferred by Amal Chandra Naha Roy which was allowed by judgment and decree dated 22.12.1995 (Annexure P-2). It is submitted that in the said appeal it was declared that it is only the dependant of the plaintiff who is entitled for appointment and Ram Milan Nai to whom the appointment was given is not entitled for any such appointment. It is submitted that second appeal was preferred by Ram Milan Nai which was also dismissed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 18.9.1996 and thus on the basis of this pronouncement of the judgment and decree in the civil suit the is entitled for appointment. She submits that petitioner immediately after the judgment and decree of the Civil Court, the petitioner had filed applications Annexure P-6 and P-7 on 23.6.1996 and 16.11.1996 respectively. Father ofthe petitioner had also made an application for the said purpose on 12.8.1996 (Annexure P-8) but despite all this the appointment has not been given to the petitioner. She submits that even the legal notice sent by the petitioner on 28.6.1997 (Annexure P-9) remained un-replied and ultimately order impugned dated 14.7.1998 (Annexure P-10) has been passed refusing the claim of the petitioner. It is argued that in similar situation one Sahida Bano has been given appointmenton 24.3.1993 (Annexure P- 13).
\^
and respite to the ousted family. However, in the case in hand the land was acquired in the year 1980 but for the first time the claim was put forth in the year 1996. He submits that from the beginning the intention ofthe respondents remained bona fide and that iswhy Ram Milan Nai who had claimed himself to be dependant of the land oustee in respect of the same land for which the petitioner is claiming herself to be entitled for appointment, was given appointment. However, subsequently it was brought to the knowledge of the respondentsSECL that earlier Suddulal was the owner of the land and had sold his land to the father of the petitioner and therefore Ram Milan Nai obtained the appointment claiming himself to be the adopted son of Suddulal but when correct facts were established, Ram Milan Nai was removed from the job vide order dated 21.4.1997 (Annexure P-4). He submits that when the land of the petitioner's father was acquired, the petitioner was minor and though there were other male members in the family, no appointment by them was claimed. He submits that even while rejecting the claim of the petitioner vide Annexure P-10, father of the petitioner was asked to suggest some other name as dependant so that the appointment can be provided to him but till date no such claim has been made by any other family member of Amal Chandra Naha Roy. He submits that as no claim whatsoever was put forth by anyone of the direct dependant of Amal Chandra Naha Roy, it is to be presumed that they were not interested to get any such appointment. More so, in the year 1992 the petitioner got married and on this count also she is not entitled for the appointment in lieu of the acquisition of the land of Amal Chandra Naha Roy. He submits that policy (Annexure P-1) is dated 25.9.1991 whereas theland ofthe father ofthe petitioner was acquired in the year 1980 and thus the petitionercannottakeany benefit of the policy of 1991. In the year 1980 there was no policy in writing by way of circular etc. and therefore the persons whose land was acquired were given preferential right in the general recruitment subject to medical fitness and availability of posts. He submits that in the year 1984 it was for the first time when the policy was circulated by the Coal India Limited through its subsidiary Company and Annexure R-1 is the copy of one such circular. According to him, at the time of
g^6^Sw,^:.^2^,
^
considering the case of the petitioner in the year 1996, the policy of year1984wasapplicableaccordingtowhichinviewofthelimited employment opportunities in mining sector, the employment has to be confined to male members of the displaced family and it is for this reason the petitioner could not be given employment. He submits that even if any appointment has been given to Sahida Bano, the petitioner cannot claim any negative equality.
''^ ff .^•' Ay
the year 1980, no claim could be sustained in the year 2010 i.e. after a gap of about 30 years.
Sd/Pritinker Diwaker Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner is entitled to appointment in lieu of acquisition of her father's land after a lapse of 30 years.
Whether the petitioner qualifies as a dependent given her marriage and the absence of other eligible male family members.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Punjab State Electricity Board and others v. Malkiat SinghExplained¶56
Punjab State Electricity Board and others v. Malkiat Singh (2005) 9 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Madhuri Roy
SECL
Pritinker Diwaker
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
