JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. All these three writ petitions, involving common questions, were heard at length and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Mr. Sumit Gadodia, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the respondents be directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for their appointment, as they are in displaced person category (i) and their names were included in the list of 207 persons sent by the Director Project Land Rehabilitation (DPLR), Bokaro Steel City, respondent No. 2 to the Steel Authority of India Limited-respondent No. 1, and therefore they are entitled to be considered in view of specific directions given by this Court in LPA Nos. 161 and 162 of 1996 (R) as well as in MJC No. 139 of 1999(R). He further submitted that one member of each displaced family is to be given employment. 3. Referring to paragraph 25 of the judgment Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Ors. he further submitted that the definition of the family includes husband, wife and minor children and other persons dependent on the head of the family and every major son like petitioners should be treated as separate family. Mr. Gadodia further submitted that the order dated 5.3.2008 of Supreme Court in S.L.A. (Civil) No. 1415 of 2007 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited v. Debu Lal Mahto and Ors. is applicable to category (ii) persons whereas petitioners are in category (i). 4. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, appearing for the respondents, submitted that these writ petitions has to be dismissed in view of the Division Bench judgment Steel Authority of India Limited v. Jamuna Prasad Mahto etc., and also the recent judgment of Honble Supreme Court passed in Debu Lal Mahto, (supra). He further submitted that the father/brother of the petitioners, were already given employment as displaced persons. 5. Petitioners case is fully covered by the said judgment of Jamuna Prasad Mahto and Debu Lal Mahto, (supra). The orders passed in LPA Nos. 161 and 162 of 1996 (R) and MJC No. 139 of 1999(R) were considered in these judgments. In paragraph 25 of the judgment of Jamuna Prasad Mahto, (supra) it was held as follows: (JCR page 533) 25. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the Bokaro Steel Plant was established for the growth of one of the Steel Industries of the nation. In paragraph 25 of the judgment of Jamuna Prasad Mahto, (supra) it was held as follows: (JCR page 533) 25. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the Bokaro Steel Plant was established for the growth of one of the Steel Industries of the nation. It was dedicated to the nation and it is a prestigious Steel Plant. It was established in Public Sector. Land had to be acquired by the State under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for which the Government paid huge amounts of compensation to the displaced persons and even went to the extent of providing employment in the manner described in this writ application. Therefore, the Government cannot be obliged to go on keeping alive the claim of very Tom, Dick and Harry" for appointment nor can the Government or the Authority be called upon to answer a charge that they are playing "ducks and drakes" with the orders of the High Court because the obligation of the State to ensure that no citizen is deprived of its livelihood cannot be stretched to such an extent that they are obliged to provide employment to every member of each family displaced in consequence of acquisition of land. This Court draws inspiration for the aforementioned proposition from he judgment of the Supreme Court of India passed in the case of Butu Prasad Kumbhar v. SAIL "reported in" 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 225 at 229 (para-6). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while dealing with the Rourkella Steel Plant and while taking the aforementioned view, have gone to the extent of saying that even if the Government or the Steel Plant would not have offered any employment to any person, it would not have resulted in violation of any fundamental right. In the contrary, their Lordships have said that acceptance of demand for employment would run counter to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This Court is constrained to observe that Bokaro Steel Plant was dedicated to the nation and not to the Distinct of Bokaro only. It is a prestigious plant of the country and repeated claims for appointment based on compassion must now be deprecated thoroughly and completely. This Court is constrained to observe that Bokaro Steel Plant was dedicated to the nation and not to the Distinct of Bokaro only. It is a prestigious plant of the country and repeated claims for appointment based on compassion must now be deprecated thoroughly and completely. Such considerations have deprived the Management of the opportunity to appoint people through open advertisement from across the country and because of Judicial Orders, they have been prevented from making such appointments and even today, claim after claim is being put forth demanding the benefits of displacement notwithstanding they having received substantial amounts of compensation. This must stop now. The Government cannot be said to be at fault and any such claim made before the Management should be frowned upon as bringing illegal pressure on the Government amounting to upsetting constitutional safeguards of Public Sector Undertakings to get and appoint the best of hands through open advertisements from all over the country... . Further paragraph 29 reads as follows : (JCR page 535) 29. I fully agree with the reasoning and conclusion of my learned brother and fully agree with his decision. I wish to add that if such offers of appointment are made while acquiring land for a project due to local conditions, extreme care should be taken to keep it within bounds. This form of recruitment is against the Constitutional scheme of appointment and the rule of equal opportunity. During the hearing we were informed that only 6,000 posts on land losers head was available, but already about 15,000 have been employed under that head. This is certainly impermissible. It is submitted that it was due to external pressures and orders of Court that this happened. This only indicates that Courts should be cautious in making observations and directions and should not lose sight of the scope and limited ambit of the scheme. Nor can the Government or the authorities be compelled to succumb to outside and improper pressures. The figure given also gives a warning that such schemes should not be introduced without appropriate thought and without imposing strict limitation on it. The observation of the Supreme Court in the judgment quoted by my learned brother should always be kept in mind. 6. The figure given also gives a warning that such schemes should not be introduced without appropriate thought and without imposing strict limitation on it. The observation of the Supreme Court in the judgment quoted by my learned brother should always be kept in mind. 6. Though the order of Debu Lal Manto (supra) arose out of contempt cases in respect of displaced persons falling to category (ii) but it fully covers the case of all displaced persons under both categories. It was noticed in this case that for acquisition of land, in addition to compensation, an understanding was reached far back on 25.1.1964 that one person from each family would be given employment in the steel plant, and accordingly a list was prepared of all persons whose land with building was acquired and those whose lands were only acquired. The original list prepared in the year 1972 consisted of 6019 displaced families, against which more than 16,000 (approx) persons have already been given employment. Thereafter on 5.9.1991 when 150 vacancies arose a scheme was framed which was approved by order dated 7.4.1998 of this Court in the said LPA Nos. 161 and 162 of 1996 (R). (emphasis supplied) 7. It was further found that "Pursuant to the directions of the High Court, Director, Project, Land and Rehabilitations (for short DPLR) prepared a list and sent the names of 286 persons and on verification it was found that 79 persons were not eligible for consideration in category (i) and on 8.4.2002, the DPLR confirmed the list of 207 persons, 193 persons were given appointment against notified 150 vacancies. 12 persons were found medically unfit/unsuitable/ineligible for appointment. This exhausted the category (i) list of 207 persons provided by DPLR." 8. Mr. Gadodia submitted that petitioners are three persons out of these 12 persons who have been found ineligible, on the ground that their father/brother were already given employment but in some cases as detailed in Annexure 15, more than one family member were given employment and therefore, the respondents cannot discriminate with the petitioners. 9. In reply Mr. Rajiv Ranjan submitted that petitioners cannot claim discrimination, if by mistake any illegality has been committed by the respondents in employing more than one person of a family in some cases. 9. In reply Mr. Rajiv Ranjan submitted that petitioners cannot claim discrimination, if by mistake any illegality has been committed by the respondents in employing more than one person of a family in some cases. However he referred to paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed on 31.3.2008 in which it is stated "that the respondent Company shall constitute an enquiry and if it is found that more than one person from the same family has been given appointment then appropriate actions in accordance with law shall be taken against the persons named in Annexure 15." 10. It is also important to note the following paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment of Debu Lal Mahto (supra): 9. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to subsequent Memorandum of the Government dated 3.2.1986 in which it was clearly mentioned in sub-para (v) of para 4 as under: In the context of the urgent necessity of public sector enterprises operating at commercially viable levels and generating adequate internal resources, over manning has to be guarded against, any understanding formal or informal in regard to offer of employment to one member of every dispossessed family in project will stand withdrawn. 10. It is unfortunate that despite the scheme having been withdrawn way back in 1986, the same finds no mention in any of the litigation which has arisen with regard to the project. If the decision to withdraw the scheme was already taken by the Government of India in 1986 then that should have been brought to the notice of the Courts at appropriate time that whatever scheme that had to be implemented had in fact been already implemented and henceforth no further employment would be given in terms of the scheme to such landless people whose lands had been acquired. Had this fact been brought to the notice of the Courts by the parties perhaps things would have been different. But unfortunately, this basic fact has been lost sight of and this had resulted in a large number of litigation and the present contempt petitions before the High Court are an outcome of this. 11. Be that as it may, it is now high time to put an end to the litigation. But unfortunately, this basic fact has been lost sight of and this had resulted in a large number of litigation and the present contempt petitions before the High Court are an outcome of this. 11. Be that as it may, it is now high time to put an end to the litigation. It is an admitted fact the project was competed way back in 1966 and even after more than 40 years of the completion of the project, people whose land was acquired for the purposes of the project are still litigating for getting employment. This is not at all warranted. At the relevant time, the intention of the Government was to rehabilitate the landless people whose lands had been acquired and to provide employment to one member of the displaced family so that they could maintain the family so displaced. It was not at all the intention of the Government to distribute this kind of largesse on an indefinite basis. This is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. 11. Thus it is seen that the entire controversy being raised from time to time claiming employment against displaced person category has been set at rest by the judgment of Jamuna Prasad Mahto, (supra). In the judgment of Debu Lal Mahto, (supra) it has further been noticed that the scheme under which such claims are made was withdrawn way back on 3.2.1986 (Annexure F) but it was not brought to the notice of the Court, but unfortunately this fact has been lost sight. It was further held that it is not high time to put an end to the litigation. In the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan, (supra) there was clear definition of "family" but in the present case there is no such definition. The word family cannot be stretched to mean all members who have become major in the last 40 years. So far as the ground of discrimination is concerned, firstly, this Court cannot perpetuate illegality, if any, and secondly, as noticed above, the respondents have stated that they shall constitute an enquiry and if it is found that more than one person from the same family has been given appointment, then appropriate actions in accordance with law shall be taken against the persons named in Annexure 15. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in these writ petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in these writ petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. However, no cost.