Rahul Jaiswal Vs Coal India Limited

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:8248

¶3

Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.02.20 14:26:42 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

Reserved on 10-2-2025 Pronounced on 18-2-2025

¶7

WPS No. 6186 of 2019

¶8

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

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Coal India Limited Through The Chairman -Cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited, 10 Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata, WB, District : Kolkata, West Bengal

¶12

2 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Manging Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (CG) 3 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶13

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

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For petitioner : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, Advocate.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J

¶17

CAV Order

¶18

Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following relief :-

¶19

2

¶20

“i. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent company to provide employment to the petitioner in lieu of acquired land as per the nomination.

¶21

ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 17/7/2019 so far it denies consideration of claim of the petitioner by returning the nomination back and direct the respondent No.2 to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of employment against the land acquired.

¶22

iii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to take final decision over the proposal if any as stated by the respondents in the impugned order dated 17/7/2019.

¶23

iv. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.

¶24

v. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

¶25

Brief facts of the case, as reflected from the memo of petition, are that, the 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

¶26

3

¶27

of employment, the father of the petitioner nominated the petitioner and accordingly the nomination paper vide Annexure P-3 was submitted before the respondents authorities in favour of the petitioner for grant of employment. Despite submission of all the documents, the respondents have not taken any effective action to provide employment to the petitioner, whereas finding the case of the petitioner to be eligible and complete in all respect, the Area Screening Committee recommended the case of the 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 petitioner, they have now issued the impugned order Annexure P-1 returning the claim of the petitioner. It is pleaded in the petition that perusal of the impugned order 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 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.

¶28

4

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, respondents SECL is adopting pick and choose method in providing employment to the land oustees. Because of agitation made by land oustees, a settlement was arrived at between the local administration and General Manager of SECL, Kusmunda area, thereafter an advertisement was issued vide Annexure AD/2 dated 7- 2-2011 in various newspapers. In pursuance of that, Suresh Kumar Jaiswal, father of petitioner has nominated the petitioner to provide him job vide Ex. AD-3 dated 26-2-2011, which has also been recommended by the Revenue officials, despite that, employment has not been provided to the petitioner. Thereafter, respondents authorities again published ‘Important Information’ on daily newspaper ‘Hari Bhumi’ dated 12-7-2016, wherein, as last opportunity, nomination applications were invited from those land oustees of old acquisition cases (prior to 1995), who have not been provided employment yet, to which, father of petitioner again filed nomination application of petitioner dated 13-10-2017 (Annexure R- 10), therefore respondents cannot be permitted to take stand that, claim has been made by the petitioner belatedly.

¶30

3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, in similarly situated case bearing WPS No. 6363/2011 (Gopal Krishna Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.) vide order dated 16-8-2016, learned Single Bench has passed order in favour of the petitioner of

¶31

5

¶32

that case and directed the SECL to provide him job in lieu of acquisition of land belonging to the petitioner’s family. Writ Appeal No. 559/2016 filed against that order by the SECL has been rejected by learned Division Bench and SLP (Civil) Diary No. 3717/2019 has also been rejected vide order dated 15-2-2019 by Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is also submitted that similar order has also been passed by learned Single Bench of this Court in WPS No. 1266/2017 (Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.) vide order dated 28-11-2023, and respondents have been directed to provide employment to the petitioner. In WA No. 294/2024, aforesaid order has been affirmed. Similar order was also passed by learned Single Bench in WPS No. 3189/2014 (Durga Devi Jaiswal Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd and anr.) vide order dated 29-7-2024, which has also been affirmed by learned Division Bench in WA No. 702/2024 vide order dated 4-11-2024. Therefore, he submits that, similar order may be passed in this case.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondents, referring to their reply, would submit that, land of petitioner’s father was acquired in the year 1983-84 and award was passed on 9-10-1984. Thereafter nomination form Annexure R-2 was submitted in the office of respondents in the year 2013 i.e. about 30 years of the acquisition of land. As per affidavit dated 17-4-2013 filed along with Annexure R-2/ nomination form filed by father of the petitioner/ land owner, age of

¶34

6

¶35

father of petitioner was about 28 years when award dated 9-10-2984 was passed, as such, he himself might have filed application for employment at that time, but he waived the same and after about 30 years, petitioner is claiming employment. Learned counsel further submits that, vide Annexure R-8 dated 15-1-2015, nomination application filed by Suresh Kumar Jaiswal, father of the petitioner, to provide employment to his son Rahul Jaiswal has already been rejected, but the same has not been challenged by the petitioner or his father. It is further submitted that petitioner was born in the year 1995 i.e. after about 11 years of passing of award dated 9-10-1984, as such, since he was not in existence, therefore, he cannot be supposed to be dependent or family member of the land oustee/ owner Suresh Kumar Jaiswal. Therefore, instant writ petition is liable to be rejected. He relied on decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. Prem Kumar Sharma and ors. (AIR 2006 SC 2727), decisions of this court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Singh and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors. (AIR 2015 CG 139), Hira Lal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (WA No. 160/2021 dated 8-2-2023.)

¶36

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, though land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1983-84, but since SECL did not provide employment to the land oustee despite demand made by them, therefore, on being representation

¶37

7

¶38

made by land oustees and agitation being made, district administration intervened in the issue, thereafter SECl published Public Notice / Important Information twice in various newspapers calling nomination applications. It is further submitted that, in the aforecited cases, objections raised by learned counsel for the respondents that claim for appointment was made after about 25 years of land acquisition, has been turned down by learned Division Bench. Further vide Annexure P-8 i.e. information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005, office of respondents has provided information that, 11 land owners/dependents have been provided employment, who were born after the date of award. Therefore, ground of delay raised by learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted.

¶39

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶40

In instant case, admittedly land of petitioner’s father was acquired for the SECL in the year 1983-84 and award was passed on 9-10-1984. The father of the petitioner in the year 2013 nominated the petitioner and submitted nomination paper before the respondents authorities for grant of employment to the petitioner.

¶41

This Court vide order dated 14-9-2023 directed the respondents to file affidavit as to what steps have been taken after

¶42

8

¶43

submission of nomination by the petitioner’s father. In compliance of same, the respondents submitted affidavit on 2-11-2023 stating that after examining the case, the respondents found that, the petitioner is not entitled for employment in lieu of acquisition of land of his father which was communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure R-8. Thereafter land owner Suresh Kumar Jaiswal again submitted application on 15-7-2016 before the office of District Collector, Korba and prayed for issuance of direction to the SECL for providing employment to his son/petitioner, which he forwarded to the respondents. Thereafter again the landowner submitted nomination Form Annexure R-10 on 13-10-2017 before the respondents and nominated his son /petitioner for grant of employment. The respondents examined the same and found that there was no scope to provide employment to any dependent who have born after acquisition of land. It is further stated in the affidavit that the agenda related to providing employment against old acquisition (i.e. land acquired prior to 1991) was to be deliberated in the SECL Board to Coal India Ltd. as the proposal involves policy decision. Thereafter, the subject proposal was returned to the office of Kusmunda Area for resubmitting it after out come of final decision, which was informed to the owner of land vide Annexure P-1 dated 13-5-2019, which is impugned in this petition.

¶44

Though the land of the father of the petitioner was

¶45

9

¶46

acquired in the year 1983-84 and nomination papers were submitted by the petitioner’s father to provide employment to the petitioner in the year 2011, 2013 and 2017 i.e. with a long delay, about after 30 years, but contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, after acquisition of land, the respondents did not give employment to the land oustees despite demand made by them. In such circumstances, agitation was made by the land oustees, therefore, district administration had intervened in the matter and thereafter the SECL had published public information in various newspapers calling nomination papers and then nomination paper Annexure AD-3 dated 28-2-2011 was submitted by father of petitioner. One such general information was published on 7-2-2011 (vide Annexure AD-2) in ‘Dainik Bhaskar’ newspaper, which is reproduced as under :-

¶47

द ि �नांक 05.01.2011 एवं 17.01.2011 को ी ्ቦ मान ज ि �लाधीश महो�य कोरबा ( छ् ቈ ीसगढ ़ ) की अधय् ् ቌ ता मे ं माननीय ् ቌे े ्ቔ ीय द ि वधायको ं की उपቝ ኌ 01त ि त मे ं पुनवा3स से संबंत ि धत द ि वषय पर हुई चचा3 क े े �रद ि मयान यह द ि न् ቓ 3य ल ि लया गया है द ि क एसईसीएल कसमुण ु ु ् डा ्ቌ ्ቌ े े ्ቔ ्ቛ ा ्ቛ रा अቌ ኌ �त द ि वभ ि भ् ቐ ्ቇ ्ቇ ामो ं क े े उन भू - द ि व01ाद ि पतो ं से रो�गार हेतु नामांकन प् ቔ ल ि लया �ाए , ज ि �नहोने ् आ� द ि �नांक तक अपने 0वाद ि मत ् व की अቌ ኌ �त भूद ि म क े े एव� मे ं अपना या अपने आभ ि ् ቦ त का नामांकन नही ं भरा है।

¶48

अतएव द ि व् ሺ द ि D क े े माधयम ् से उन भू - द ि व01ाद ि पतो ं को यह सूत ि चत द ि कया �ाता है द ि क इस द ि व् ሺ द ि D द ि �नांक से एक माह क े े अं�र आवशयक ् भूद ि म एवं अनय ् �0तावे�ो ं क े े सा1

¶49

10

¶50

' नोडल अत ि धकारी ( भू - रा�0व ) एसईसीएल कसमुण ु ु ् डा ् ቌे े ्ቔ क े े काया3लय मे ं �मा करे ं एक माह क े े अं�र नामांकन �मा नही करने की ቝ ኌ 01त ि त मे ं उनक े े रो�गार क े े आवे�न पर भद ि वष ् य मे ं कोई द ि वचार नही ं द ि कया �ायेगा , एवं उ् खाते पर रो�गार की �ावे�ारी नही ं होगी।

¶51

Again on 12-7-2016, the respondents published ‘Important Information’ vide Annexure AD-6 in ‘Hari Bhumi’ daily newspaper, which is also reproduced as under :-

¶52

" आवश्यकसूचना्ቅ

¶53

. एसईसीएल ./ म् ቚ ./ गेवरा ् ቌे े ्ቔ / भू - रा�0व /2016/533 द ि �नांक 12.07.2016

¶54

आम �नता को सूत ि चत द ि कया �ाता है द ि क पुराने अ�3न ् ቚ कर् ቓ ो ं मे (1995 ं क े े पूव3 का ) ज ि �न खाते�ारो ं की भूद ि म एसईसीएल गेवरा , �ीपका , कोरबा एवं कसमुण ु ु ् डा ् ቌे े ्ቔ ् ቛ ारा कोयला उत ् खनन हेतु अቌ ኌ �त की गई है त1ा ज ि �नहे ् आ� पय3नत ् रो�गार नही ं ् ቚ ाD हुआ है , द ि �नांक 15.05.2016 को ज ि �ला पुनवा3स सद ि मत ि त की बैठक मे ं ल ि लये गये द ि न् ቓ 3य अनुसार नामांकन प् ቔ भरने हेतु अंत ि तम अवसर ्ቚ ्ቚ �ान द ि कया �ाता है। इस सूचना क े े ् ቚ काशन क े े सात द ि �वस क े े भीतर नामांकन प् ቔ सुसंगत �0तावे�ो सद ि हत काया3लय कलेकटर ् एवं ज ि �ला �ण ् डात ि धकारी कोरबा क े े भू - अ�3न शाखा मे ं स् ቌ म अत ि धकारी क े े सम् ቌ ्ቚ ्ቚ 0तुत करे ं । उ् ሹ समयावत ि ध क े े प् ቐ ात नामांकन प् ቔ 0वीकार नही ं द ि कये �ाये ं गे। इस संबंध मे ं यह अंत ि तम सूचना है। �0तोवे�ो ं की सूची एसईसीएल क े े भू - अ�3न द ि वभाग से ् ቚ ाD द ि कया �ा सकता है।

¶55

यह भी सूत ि चत द ि कया �ाता है द ि क ज ि �न नामांकन प् ቔ ो ं को �0तावे�ो ं की कमी क े े कार् ቓ पूव3 मे ं अ0वीक ृ ृ त द ि कया गया है , उनहे ् ं भी इस सूचना क े े माधयम ् से अपने सुसंगत �0तावे� उ् समयावत ि ध मे ं �मा कर सकते है। उ् समयावत ि ध क े े प् ቐ ात

¶56

11

¶57

�0तावे� भी 0वीकार नही ं द ि कये �ायेगे। ं इस संबंध मे ं यह अंत ि तम सूचना है।

¶58

एसईसीएल

¶59

" गेवरा , �ीपका , कोरबा एवं कसमुण ु ु ् डा ् ቌे े ्ቔ

¶60

From perusal of the aforesaid publication, it is quite vivid that, nomination papers from those land oustees /land owners/ their dependents were invited, who have not been provided employment in lieu of acquisition of their land. In second publication dated 12-7-2016 (Annexure AD-6), nomination applications were also invited from those land oustees/ land owners for providing employment, whose land had been acquired prior to 1995, by the SECL Gevra, Dipka, Korba and Kusmunda for coal mining, who have not been given employment till that date. Even the persons, whose nominations forms had been rejected earlier due to lack of documents, were also given opportunity to submit relevant documents. Perusal of above publications by respondents SECL itself shows that, they themselves invited nomination from those persons, who/whose dependents have not been provided employment. Therefore, delay in submissions of nomination paper cannot be attributed only to the petitioner.

¶61

It is also pertinent to mention here that there is nothing on record to show that, appointment was ever offered to the father of the petitioner, which he has denied. Hence, the objection raised by the respondents SECL on the ground of delay and laches is liable to be rejected.

¶62

12

¶63

Further objection of the respondents is that at the time of acquisition, the petitioner was not born, therefore, he cannot claim for employment against the acquisition of land of his father. This objection is also not sustainable in the instant case, for the reason, that the land of the father of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1983-84, but no offer of employment was found to be made to him. There is nothing on record to show that any such offer was ever made to the father of petitioner, which he refused. The process of calling nomination was started when, as per petitioner, agitation was made by the land oustees and when the district administration intervened. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied employment only because he was not born at the time of land acquisition. Further, the petitioner has filed Annexure P-8, which is an information provided by the Staff Officer (Land Revenue), Kusmunda Area to Public Information Officer, Kusmunda Area, SECL under the Right to Information Act, 2005, with respect to the information sought by one Heeralal Yadav, in which, it has been informed that employment has been provided to 11 land owners/dependents born after passing of award. Perusal of above document shows that the respondents/SECL has already provided employment to 11 persons, who were born after passing of award in land acquisition cases. Hence, the objection raised by the respondents that since the petitioner was not born at the time of acquisition of land, therefore, he cannot be given employment, is not sustainable.

¶64

13

¶65

The respondents have filed Annexure R-6 along with their return, which is a communication dated 18-1-1991 made by the Chief General Manager, Korba to the Additional Collector, Korba (the then Madhya Pradesh), whereby he has informed the Additional Collector that as per the agreed norms, preference is to be given to the land oustees for employment who fall in the following categories :-

¶66

i. Land oustees having more than one acre of land.

¶67

ii. Land oustees having less than one acre of land, who possesses the following minimum qualifications -

¶68

a. High School certificate;

¶69

b. ITI

¶70

c. Valid HV Driving Licence with – VIII class.

¶71

As per mark sheet of the petitioner, he is having certificate of High School, therefore, as per Clause ii-a of above communication, he is having necessary qualification for getting employment.

¶72

Thus, in view of above discussion, it is evident that, though land of petitioner’s father was acquired in the year 1983-84, but as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, despite repeated efforts, the petitioner was not provided employment and in pursuance of agitation made by land oustees and intervention of the district administration, respondents SECL themselves published

¶73

14

¶74

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 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 Annexure R-6 made by the Chief General Manager, Korba SECL, the petitioner is having necessary qualification for getting suitable employment. Though the petitioner born after acquisition of land of his father, but as per information provided by respondents authorities vide Annexure P-8, respondents have provided employment to 11 land owners/ dependents, who were born after passing of award. Therefore, highly stressed objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents in this regard is also not sustainable.

¶75

Undisputedly, the petitioner is son of Suresh Kumar Jaiswal, land owner, who nominated him for getting employment. But, the respondents authorities without considering aforesaid facts, declined the petitioner to provide employment by adopting pick and chose method, whereas as per Annexure P-8, they have provided employment to 11 persons, who were born after passing of award. Facts and circumstances of instant case as discussed above, are not similar to the case laws relied upon by learned counsel for the

¶76

15

¶77

respondents, therefore, those case laws are not helpful to the respondents in facts situation of instant case.

¶78

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order (Annexure P-1) dated 13-5-2019 / 17-7-2019 is set aside. The respondents are directed to provide employment to the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date of submission/ receipt of copy of this order.

¶79

There shall be no order as to cost(s).

¶80

Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶81

Pathak/-

Rahul Jaiswal v. Coal India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Jaiswal v. Coal India Limited

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

Smt. Basanti Lakra Vs Manoj Kumar Mehta

Mithilesh Sharma Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Smt. Meera Gupta Vs Chakradhar Gupta

Smt. Roshni Maurya Vs Shri Vikas Maurya

Bhavani Shankar Sahu Vs Shivprasad

Agrawal Traders Poha Mill Vs Ku. Mansi Verma