Dismissed

Basanti Naik v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.

Orissa HC12 Jul 2024WP(C)/8688/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a land oustee nominee employed by MCL, challenged suspension for obstructing mining. High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding no financial benefit was due under the 'No Work No Pay' principle as suspension resulted from the petitioner's violation of the employment agreement.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; claim for financial benefit during suspension period rejected.

Basanti Naik Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.8688 of 2018

¶3

Basanti Naik …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Laxman Pradhan, Adv. -versus- …. The Mahanadi Coalfield Opposite Party(s) Ltd., Angul & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Biswa Mohan Patnaik, Sr. Adv. along with associates Mr. P.R. Patnaik, Adv.

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

Order ORDER

No. 12.07.2024

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶11

2. The Petitioner claiming herself to be the nominee of the land oustees, has challenged the communication dated 13.10.2017/Annexure-2 made by the Staff Officer (Mining) and also the communication dated 14.12.2017/Annexure-4 made by the General Manager (L/R&R), MCL HQ.

¶12

3. Factual scenario of the case as well as submissions on behalf of the parties in brevity remains:-

¶13

(a) Petitioner is an inhabitant of village-Lanjijoda, which comes within the jurisdiction of the Lingaraj Area of the Manahandi Coalfield Ltd., Angul. Upon acquisition of land

¶14

by the Opposite Parties for mining activities, the name of the Signature Not Verified

¶15

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 16-Jul-2024 17:01:57

¶16

Petitioner being the nominee of the land oustee, was sp on sored by the concerned authority (Special Land

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

Acquisition Officer, Angul) of the State Government for employment.

¶19

(b) On the basis of the recommendation made by the Scrutinizing Committee constituted for the above purpose, the case of the Petitioner for employment was considered. Thereafter, she was provisionally offered with an order of employment for the post of Cat-I with the scale of pay of Rs.65.40-1.08-80.52 of NCWA-V. The said offer of appointment was subject to handing over of the physical possession of the land measuring Ac.0.077 as mentioned in (a) and land measuring Ac.0.162 as mentioned in (b).

¶20

(c) The conditions stipulated for employment are extracted herein below:-

¶21

“ You will be allowed to join provisionally after fulfilling the

¶22

condition (a) in case of any obstruction / resistance created by you and / or by any of the family member of Tirthabasi Naik land oustee during;

¶23

(i) the measurement of structure, standing over the plots of land as mentioned in (b) by MCL’S Engineering team.

¶24

(ii) the taking over physical possession / working therein in the aforesaid lands mentioned in (a) & (b) after over handing possession by the State Government, your services will be terminated without giving any notice. ”

¶25

(d) Thereafter, upon fulfilling all the requirements the Petitioner was appointed as Cat-I Mazdoor at Lingaraj O.C.P. Siding.

¶26

Signature Not Verified (e)

¶27

(e) At this juncture, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that since the family members of the Petitioner had obstructed the mining process because of their personal gain,

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 16-Jul-2024 17:01:57

¶29

Page 2 of 4

¶30

the Petitioner as per the terms and conditions in the agreement was placed under suspension for the period from 13.10.2017 to 10.12.2019. Thereafter, she was reinstated in service and since then she has been working uninterruptedly.

¶31

(f) He further draws the attention of this Court to clause 4 of the agreement, which is extracted herein below:-

¶32

“That, I am fully aware of the fact, that if my nominee who is already sponsored or any nominee to be sponsored in future and provided with employment by M.C. Ltd., such employment is given after taking into consideration the expected future acquisition of the land and assets thereon in villages under acquisition and I undertake solemnly that no further employment or other rehabilitation facilities other than resettlement will be claimed by me or by any of my successors/family members of agent or attorney for further acquisition of my land in the village under acquisition and any other village already notified for acquisition for M.C. Ltd. projects, I shall only retain the right to claim resettlement facilities but not employment or other rehabilitation facilities as per prevailing State Govt./CIL norms against my acquired homestead land.”

¶33

(g) Challenging the above stand of the Opposite Parties and abandoning the prayer made in this Writ Petition, learned counsel for the Petitioner only contends that since the Petitioner was restrained from working in the establishment by the authority concerned, she should get the financial benefit for the above period.

¶34

Signature Not Verified (h)

¶35

(h) To the contrary, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that in view of the agreement more particularly the clause-4 therein, the Petitioner cannot be granted any

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 16-Jul-2024 17:01:57

¶37

Page 3 of 4

¶38

compensation for the above purpose as she has not worked for the above period.

¶39

(j) He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition.

¶40

4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and looking to the factual scenario of the case, this Court is of the view that since the Petitioner was not prevented from working for the above period due to the violation of the clause 4 of the agreement, she does not deserve to get any kind of benefit for the said period. In the process, this Court applying the principle of “No Work No Pay”, rejects the claim of the Petitioner for financial benefit for the above noted period as she was placed under suspension due to violation of the agreement.

¶41

5. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶42

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

¶43

Judge

¶44

Ayaskanta

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 16-Jul-2024 17:01:57

¶47

Page 4 of 4

Basanti Naik v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basanti Naik v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Golekha @G.C.Behera Vs Md,Idcol

Rabindra Ku.Barik Vs Md,Idcol

Tanuja Nayak Vs Bse,Odisha

Gajendra Singh Vs Union of India

Sabita Rani Dash@Panda Vs B.M, S.B.I., Keonjhar

Sushanta Kumar Das @ Bipin Das Vs State of Odisha