Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 664 (CAL)

Abu Bakkar Siddiqui v. Director, WBSEB

2001-10-12

ASHOK KUMAR MATHUR, GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA

body2001
JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Mathur, Chief Justice. 1. Both these appeals arise out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 2nd December, 1998 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, both the appeals are disposed by the common order. 2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are that the land of the petitioner measuring about 10 acres was acquired by the State of West Bengal for respondent No.7 for construction of a sub-station. The case of the petitioners was that in view of the policy decision taken by the State Government that one of the family members of the land loosers shall be given employment. The petitioners placed reliance on various circulars issued by the State Government. 3. The contention of the petitioner was that the land of these petitioners were taken and they were not given employment towards land loosers. They filed representations and approached the authorities but without any result. Therefore, they were driven to file a Writ Petition which came to be registered as C.O. No.5632 (W) of 1993. This petition came to be disposed of on 9th April, 1996 by G.R. Bhattacharjee, J. (as he then was) with a direction that since the matter is pending with the State of West Bengal for a considerable time therefore he directed that the Department of Power, Government of West Bengal to consider the matter and pass appropriate order. In pursuance of the direction given by this Court, as aforesaid, the order was passed on 7th October, 1996 which is contained in Annexure "O" and which is the subject matter of the writ petition. 4. The Joint Secretary, Government of West Bengal considered the contention of the petitioners and other 153 persons and observed that the land in question was acquired at Purba Ichhapur Sub-Station, North 24 - Parganas for the purpose of construction of 132 KV Sub-Station by the West Bengal State Electricity Board at the end of 1992. Due payment of compensation as per provisions of Land Acquisition Act have already been disbursed and possession of the land was already taken. It was pointed out that they are not entitled to the employment in view of the land taken over from them as they have already received the compensation. Due payment of compensation as per provisions of Land Acquisition Act have already been disbursed and possession of the land was already taken. It was pointed out that they are not entitled to the employment in view of the land taken over from them as they have already received the compensation. It was pointed out that they are not entitled to any preferential treatment in matters of employment under the Board save and except as provided by the Stale Labour Department's circular No.1744 dated 13th August,1979 and he rejected the claim of all the petitioners and 153 so called claimants. Aggrieved against this order the present writ petition was filed. 5. The learned Single Judge after hearing the matter and considering the various circulars on the subject observed that as per the circular dated 13th August, 1979 and memorandum dated 12th May,1988 only exemption was made regarding the appointment procedure through the Employment Exchange. That was relaxed for such persons who were uprooted from their place of residence. 6. It was pointed by the learned Single Judge that at one point of time land loosers were offered appointment and the sub-station was a very big one and a large area was acquired therefore one time exception was made and that cannot be made for a universal application. It was pointed out by the learned Single Judge that in a matter for obtaining a writ of Mandamus the petitioners must establish the existence of a legal right and corresponding legal duty. It was pointed out that it was a matter of policy decision of the State and that does not confer any legal right on the petitioners to seek appointment. It may be that at one point of time some benefit was given to such land loosers but that cannot be considered to be conferring right for all times to come to give employment to land loosers. Giving employment to land loosers is a matter of concession and such concession cannot be enforced in writ petition. However, since the concession of offering employment over and above the payment of compensation to such land loosers was only in a nature of concession and such concession cannot be enforced by a writ petition. The State cannot be directed to be over burdened for giving employment to these persons over and above the compensation already paid to them. However, since the concession of offering employment over and above the payment of compensation to such land loosers was only in a nature of concession and such concession cannot be enforced by a writ petition. The State cannot be directed to be over burdened for giving employment to these persons over and above the compensation already paid to them. Hence we are satisfied that no case is made out to interfere in these appeals and we confirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. Hence, there is no merit in both the appeals and they are dismissed. 8. No order as to costs. Girish Chandra Gupta, J.: I agree. Appeals dismissed.