Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 387 (JHR)

Umesh Mandal v. Eastern Coal Fields Ltd.

2002-03-19

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2002
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner Umesh Man-dal wherein he has prayed for direction on the respondents to forthwith provide him compensation in terms of money and service as per the policy as in vogue, the land of the petitioner is being used by the respondents Company since the year 1979. 2. The respondents in their counter-affidavit stated that the total land measuring 2.34 acres belonged to three persons, namely: (a) Umesh Mandal (petitioner) 1.17 acres; (b) Chhotu Mandal (brother of petitioner-deceased) 0.16 acre; and (c) Smt. Saraswati Mandalain (daughter of Chhotu Mandal) 1.01 acres. 3. It has further been stated that there was a policy of providing one job if total area of two acres is acquired for the purpose of mining and for allied purposes, but now such policy is not in vogue and another policy issued from prospective date by the C.I.L. and its subsidiaries. 4. The parties were asked to file affidavits enclosing the copies of the policy decision. The petitioner has enclosed the policy decision as was in vogue in 1979, circulated, vide letter No. 5512 dated 3rd September, 1975. The relevant provision, reads, as under ; "(1) if the minimum area of land acquired is not less than one acre and no more than 3 acres, one person may be offered employment irrespective of the number of the families owing the land. And (2) if the land is more than 3 acres, employment may be given to not more than two persons provided, however, there is more than one family i.e. if there is more than one owner." 5. No separate guidelines filed by the respondents along with their counter- affidavits. 6. The counsel for the respondents M/s. E.C.L. produced a photo copy of letter No. 1498 dated 12th May. 1994 to suggest that under Clause (3) therein, one employment can be given if two acres of land is acquired. It was also submitted that the recent policy decision has been circulated vide memo No. 177, dated 25th August, 2000. 7. The submission of the counsel for the respondents is misconceived as even in the Circular No. 1498, dated 12th May, 1994 at Clause (i) it was stipulated that the employment will be offered to the nominee of the land owner for each one acre of land, if the land has been used upto 31st December, 1984. 7. The submission of the counsel for the respondents is misconceived as even in the Circular No. 1498, dated 12th May, 1994 at Clause (i) it was stipulated that the employment will be offered to the nominee of the land owner for each one acre of land, if the land has been used upto 31st December, 1984. Clause (3) therein relates to land used after 1-1-1985. 8. So far as the present circular dated 25th August, 2000 is concerned, it does not prohibit to give any employment in lieu of land, but merely stipulates that the employment against land shall be considered in exceptional circumstances only to filling in vacancies subject to the land losers meeting the eligibility criteria and further subject to approval of the Board of Directors of the subsidiary companies concerned. 9. In the present case, the respondents for one or other reason have not stated as to from which date they used the land of the petitioner, though petitioner stated that the respondents are using it since 1979. Further it has not been made clear as to how the present policy decision can be made applicable in respect to those whose lands were acquired/or used much prior to that and in the light of earlier policy decision, employment were given/offered to one or other land losers. 10. In the facts and circumstances, as the matter requires reconsideration, the case is remitted to the Chairman-cum- Managing Director, M/s. E.C.L. with direction to determine the question relating to grant of service to petitioner/or his dependent, taking into consideration the issue as to since when the land of the petitioner is in use of M/s. E.C.L. and the guidelines as was in vogue, subject to availability of post and approval of the Board of Directors. 11. A decision, in this respect, be taken and communicated to petitioner within three months from the date of representation, as may be preferred by the petitioner. 12. So far as payment of compensation is concerned, the petitioner may move separately before the competent authority, if permissible. 13. The writ petition stands disposed of.