Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 484 (RAJ)

Pushkar Narayan v. Hind. Zinc Ltd.

2004-04-01

ANIL DEV SINGH, K.K.ACHARYA

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - These appeals are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.10.1999. The appellants filed writ petitions seeking direction to the respondents for securing employment to members of the families of the persons whose lands were acquired at the instance of the Hindustan Zinc Ltd. According to the appellants, they had reached an agreement with the Company, whereby the Company had agreed to give compensation for the land acquired from them and also to give employment to one of the family members of the land owners. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, having regard to the statement of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Company that the Company had never reached any 10 agreement with the appellants but in view of its policy it was to give some preference in the matter of employment to the applicants whose lands were acquired as per the eligibility criteria set out in the rules, disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to consider cases of the applicants strictly in consonance with the rules of the Company. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants have filed the instant appeals. 2. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the matter is covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in D.B. Civil Spl. Appeal (Writ) No. 373 of 1995 dated November 21, 1996. The learned counsel submits that as per the view of the co-ordinate Bench the respondent Company is obliged to give employment to the appellants. He also points out that the respondents had appealed against the decision of the Division Bench before the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court rejected the SLP on 21.3.1997. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents states that the basis on pith the appellants claim appointment does not exist at all inasmuch as the document produced by the appellants which is being pressed into service by them as an agreement between the appellants and the respondent is not only tampered with but also suffers from vagueness. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the original document was not earlier traceable when the decision was rendered in D.B. Civil Spl. Appeal (Writ) No. 373/1995. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the original document was not earlier traceable when the decision was rendered in D.B. Civil Spl. Appeal (Writ) No. 373/1995. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the document which has now been traced out it is clearly shown that the same does not bear the signatures of the land owners. He says that the alleged replica of the document produced by the appellants is a doctored one inasmuch as the signatures of the land owners appear on it. In support of his submission he has shown the document to us. 4. Having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we deem it proper not to go into the question whether the appellants are entitled for being granted employment on the basis of the alleged agreement. But, at the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that in some cases employment has been given to one of the members of the families of the land owners over and above the payment of compensation for the land acquired by it. Similar treatment is being denied to the appellants. The learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Bhandari had made a categorical statement before the learned Single Judge that the cases of the appellants shall be considered on the basis of the rules of the Company. But that undertaking has not been carried out. The respondents cannot apply different yard sticks in the cases of persons similarly circumstanced. The respondents are bound to consider the cases of the appellants as per the rules and having regard to the judgment of this Court in D.B. Civil Spl. Appeal (Writ) No. 373/95 dated November 21, 1996. The cases of the appellants shall be considered within a period of one month. 5. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the special appeals are disposed of.Special Appeal Disposed of With Above Direction. *******