Coal India Ltd. Vs Rahul Jaiswal

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:17594-DB

¶3

MANPREET KAUR

¶4

Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.04.21 16:51:28 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 250 of 2025

¶6

NAFR

¶7

1 - Coal India Ltd Through The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd., 10 Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata, Wb, District- Kolkata, West Bengal.

¶8

2 - The South Eastern Coalfield Limited Seepat Road Bilaspur C.G. Through The Chairman Cum Managing Director Secl, Bilaspur, C.G. 3 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area District- Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶9

4 - Staff Officer (Land Revenue), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area, Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Appellant(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

Rahul Jaiswal S/o Suresh Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 24 Years R/o Purani Basti, Katghora District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Appellant(s) : Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Sr. Adv. Along with Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board

¶16

2

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶18

17.04.2025

¶19

Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing.

¶20

Heard Mr. V.R. Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for respondents / State.

¶21

The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 18.02.2025 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6168 of 2019 ( Rahul Jaiswal vs. Coal India Ltd. and others ) by which, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent herein.

¶22

Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner's father was recorded owner of land bearing khasra No.201/7 area 0.07 acre and was in exclusive possession of the same since last so many years. The respondents/South Eastern Coalfields Limited (henceforth, referred to 'SECL') had made acquisition of the land for their project and taken over the land of the petitioner granting compensation. For grant of employment, the father of the writ petitioner nominated the writ petitioner and accordingly the nomination paper was submitted before the respondents authorities in favour of the writ petitioner for grant of employment. Despite submission of all the documents, the respondents have

¶23

3

¶24

not taken any effective action to provide employment to the writ petitioner, whereas finding the case of the writ petitioner to be eligible and complete in all respect, the Area Screening Committee recommended the case of the writ petitioner for employment and forwarded the same to the respondents SECL for sanction. The respondents authorities though decided to allow employment in favour of the person, who born after the date of acquisition and had even given employment in favour of various similarly situated person, but in the case of the writ petitioner, they have now issued the order dated 17.07.2019 returning the claim of the writ petitioner. The writ petition preferred WPS No. 6186 of 2019 stating that perusal of the order dated 17.07.2019 in the first part would show that the SECL Board has referred the matter for decision of Coal India Limited Board and a policy decision is to be taken whereas in the second part the employment cases were returned for resubmitting the same after decision of SECL Board. The writ petitioner is eligible and entitled for employment, however, only because of the arbitrary and discriminatory action of the respondents authorities, the same is being deprived without any rhyme or reason. On observing the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent herein vide order dated 18.02.2025. Hence, this writ appeal.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge ought to have seen that the land of the respondent's father

¶26

4

¶27

was acquired in the year 1983-84 and subsequently award was passed on 09.10.1984. The nomination form for grant of employment was submitted by the respondent's father in the year 2013 i.e. after about 30 years from the date of acquisition of the land. Therefore, the Writ Petition filed by the responded is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and latches. The learned Single Judge also ought to have seen that the age of the respondent's father i.e. land owner at the time of the acquisition was 28 years and thus he could have at that time filed nomination for his own employment. But he did not do so and resultantly waived his right of employment in lieu acquisition of his land. Now, after a long lapse of about 30 years the land owners i.e. respondent's fatherhave claimed for employment to his son. It was also submitted that the representation of the respondent's father was rejected by the respondent SECL, vide order dated 15-012015 but the same was never challenged by the respondent's father nor by the respondent even in the instant petition also. Therefore, the same attains finality in the eyes of law. The learned Single Judge failed to see that at the time of acquisition of the land, the respondent was not even born and he was born after 11 years from acquisition of the land. Therefore, he cannot be said to be dependent on the earnings from the acquired land or a family member of the respondent's father at the time of acquisition of the land in the year 1984, thus cannot be granted employment in lieu acquisition of land of his father, under the rehabilitation policy for

¶28

5

¶29

the land oustees. The learned Single Judge did not considered the case laws relied by the appellants SECL including the decision dated 06-01-2021 passed by the Hon'ble Court in WPS-721/2016 Hiralal Vs SECL Kusmunda Area , which was affirmed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 08-02-2023 passed in WA-160/2021, in which the Hon'ble Court held that 'person born after Acquisition of land, is not entitled for employment in lieu acquisition of land of the family. Further was relied the Judgement reported in AIR 2015 CG 139 Sanjeev Kumar Singh Vs UOI and AIR 2006 SC 2727 SECL Vs Prem Kumar Sharma, in which the Hon'ble Court held that, ""any wrong decision of Government/State, cannot be foundation of same order, if benefits wrongly granted under rehabilitation policy to ineligible person, cannot be claimed by others, invoked to perpetuate illegality." also relied upon the judgment 1995 AIRSCW 2388 Butu Prasad Kumbhaar Vs. Steel Authority of India In which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "employment in lieu acquisition of land cannot be granted to future generations." Further, the learned Single Judge failed to considered the fact that the claim of the writ petitioner was already rejected by the order dated 15.01.2015 and same was not challenged by the writ petitioner which attained finality in the dispute between the parties. However, thereafter considering the repeated representation of the respondent his case, was again forwarded by the Area authority to SECL HQ, and same was returned by the impugn order

¶30

6

¶31

dated13.05.2019.

¶32

He further argued that the learned Single Judge ought to have seen that no documents is filed by the petitioner nor pleaded in the petition that, his father had submitted nomination form for employment to himself at the time of acquisition of land in the year 1983-84. Without pleading and submission the learned Single Judge has given a wrong finding that, " Nothing on record to show that appointment was ever offered to the father of the petitioner, which he has denied." The learned Single judge wrongly considered the newspaper publication notice, which was issued for the land oustees or their dependents at the time of acquisition of land. The same is not for those persons who are not the land oustees nor the dependent of land owner at the time of acquisition of land and has wrongly given a finding in para 12 of the impugn judgment that, SECL has provided employment to 11 persons, who were born after passing of award in the land acquisition cases. The learned Single judge failed to consider the additional reply/submission filed by the appellant on 28.06.2021 before the learned Single Judge, in which specifically it was submitted that, In reply to the allegation that the several others have been taken in to employment, by the answering respondents who were born after acquisition of land are concerned, it is submitted that in the year 2014 the issue regarding consideration of employment cases of dependant of land oustees who were born after acquisition of land, has been raised along with other issues by the Gevra, Deepika,

¶33

7

¶34

and Kusmunda area of S.E.C.L. The issues were discussed before the standing committee and was subsequently placed before the Competent Authority, thereafter clarification has been issued vide office memo dated 22.11.2014 by the General Manager (P/M.P.) S.E.C.L. headquarter, Bilaspur, with direction to take necessary action in which specifically clarified that "keeping in view the uniform guidelines circulated vide letter dated 22.12.1984 and the prevalent practice as per M.P. (R&R) policy 1991 there is no scope to include any dependant who have born after acquisition of land. Therefore the Standing committee is of the opinion that in such cases no employment should be considered." After issuance of the above direction by the headquarter of S.E.C.L. the answering respondents had not given employment to any person who were born after acquisition of land. In the matter of State of Harayana Vs. Naresh Kumar Bali reported in 1994 AIR SCW 2539 the Hon'ble Supreme court in para 14 held that "The Highcourt could have merely directed consideration of the claim of the respondent in accordance with the rules. It cannot direct appointment. Such a direction does not fall within the scope of mandamus. Judicial review it has been repeatedly emphasized, is directed against the decision making process and not against the decision itself and it is no part of the court's duty to exercise the power of the authorities itself." Similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 8 in case of Himachal Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dinesh Kumar reported in AIR 1996 SC 2226.

¶35

8

¶36

He also argued that the record of the instant case shows that at the time of acquisition of land i.e. 1983 the age of owner of acquired land Suresh Kumar herein, was only 28 years, but he did not choose for getting employment in lieu acquisition of his land and was completely silent over the matter. After about three decades the displaced person claimed for employment for his sonin lieu acquisition of his land without offering any justification or explanation for not submitting claim earlier. The conduct of land owner shows that he had relinquished his right to get employment in lieu acquisition of his land. The learned Single Judge wrongly considered the judgment relied by the respondent in the matter of Gopal Krishna Vs. SECL WPS No.6363/2011 decided on 16.08.2016 and their WA No.559/2016, SLP(C) Diary No.3717/2019 decided on 15.02.2019 and case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of CG WPS No.1266/2017 decided on 28.11.2023 and their WA No.294/2024 and the case of Durga Devi Jaiswal Vs. SECL WPS No.3189/2014 decided on 29.07.2024 and their WA No.702/2024 decided on 04.11.2024. The facts of the above cases are entirely different from the facts of the instant case. In all the above cases, the issue of whether the unborn child or future generation of the land oustees are entitled for the employment under the rehabilitation policy was not even considered and decided. The land in question was acquired in the year 1983 and the M.P. R&R policy 1991 came into force on 25.09.1991. Therefore same is not applicable in case of writ petitioner.

¶37

9

¶38

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent herein, in which, no interference is sought.

¶39

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal.

¶40

From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner observing that it is evident that, though land of writ petitioner's father was acquired in the year 1983-84, but despite repeated efforts, the writ petitioner was not provided employment and in pursuance of agitation made by land oustees and intervention of the district administration, respondents SECL themselves published notice twice i.e. in the year 2011 and 2016 in newspapers calling nomination applications from those land oustees, whose land has been acquired even prior to 1995 and who/ whose dependents have not been provided employment. Documents also show that writ petitioner's father is filing nomination paper since 2011, 2013 and 2017 to provide employment to his son (petitioner), despite that, he has not been provided employment, whereas as per communication made by the Chief General Manager, Korba SECL, the writ petitioner is having necessary qualification for getting suitable employment.

¶41

10

¶42

Though the writ petitioner born after acquisition of land of his father, but as per information provided by respondents authorities, respondents SECL have provided employment to 11 land owners/ dependents, who were born after passing of award. Undisputedly, the writ petitioner is son of Suresh Kumar Jaiswal, land owner, who nominated him for getting employment. But, the respondents SECL authorities without considering aforesaid facts, declined the writ petitioner to provide employment by adopting pick and chose method, whereas they have provided employment to 11 persons, who were born after passing of award.

¶43

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶44

Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed . No cost(s).

¶45

Sd/- Sd/-

¶46

(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶47

Manpreet

Coal India Ltd. v. Rahul Jaiswal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Coal India Ltd. v. Rahul Jaiswal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Naresh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Keshav Nishad @ Dinesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narendra Kumar Vental Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kanshinath Sandaliya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shobhna George Vs Rohit Singh