Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 306 (JHR)

Laxmi Sao v. Central Coalfhlds Ltd.

2009-02-26

AJIT KUMAR SINHA

body2009
Order The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction calling upon Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to show cause as to how and under what circumstances the petitioner is neither being paid compensation in lieu of acquisition nor the petitioner's son is being provided employment as per the policy decision of Respondent No. 1 and further to show cause as to why, Respondent No.5, namely Laki Mahto has been given employment wrongly, if not exclusively, in place of petitioner's son and calling upon the respondents to produce the document of appointment of respondent No. 5 before this Hon'ble Court as also for issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding/directing respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to forthwith pay due compensation in terms of policy decision of Respondent No. 1 and also to provide employment, under such policy to the petitioner's son, in place of respondent No.5, by declaring the said appointment of respondent No. 5 as illegal, and thereby setting it aside. 2. The facts in brief are stated as under:- There was a registered partition deed signed on 1.8.72 between the petitioner and his five brothers and all the properties and assets including the property in question was partitioned as a result of which the following lands comes under the share of petitioner and one of his brother, namely, Pyarelal Sao Khata No. Plot No. Area 97 3431 1.10 Dec. 3425 0.05 Dec. 3420 0.26 Dec. 152 3424 0.05 Dec. 3426 0.04 Dec. 3427 0.62 Dec. 3428 1.44 Dec. 3429 0.36 Dec. 3484 0.64 Dec. TOTAL 4.56 Dec. 3. According to the petitioner he and his brother Pyarelal Sao became the absolute owner of the lands arid continued in possession thereafter on payment of rent to the State after being duly mutated in respect thereto. A notification No. S.O. 4269 dated 3.9.85 was issued under the Provisions of Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 notifying the aforesaid land measuring 4.56 Dec. for acquisition and the same was accordingly acquired. The petitioner being a raiyati land holder and the same after being verified from the Revenue Authority was entitle to compensation more so when Authentication Report was submitted to the respondents by the Revenue Authority confirming the raiyati status of the petitioner vis-a-vis the land in question. 4. for acquisition and the same was accordingly acquired. The petitioner being a raiyati land holder and the same after being verified from the Revenue Authority was entitle to compensation more so when Authentication Report was submitted to the respondents by the Revenue Authority confirming the raiyati status of the petitioner vis-a-vis the land in question. 4. It is further submitted by Shri P.K. Prasad, Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the compensation case records were prepared and sent to the headquarter and assurance were given from time to time for payment of compensation but in spite of several meetings nothing came forward. The respondents accordingly took possession of the land and also issued notice stating that the lands have been acquired and no person can make any encroachment. 5. The second contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that he was entitled to compensation as well as employment under the land looser scheme as applicable in the coal company. 6. The petitioner being constrained made personal enquiry with regard to his son's employment and came to know that the private respondent No.5 herein, one Mr. Laki Mahto, S/o Manu Mahto was illegally given employment in place of the son of the petitioner for the same set of land acquired. The petitioner on coming to know of the aforesaid fact gave a complaint letter dated 13.11.98 to the Project Officer, DR&RD Project, Kargah challenging the illegal appointment of respondent No.5. In reply thereof the petitioner was asked to meet the Chief Project Officer, DR&RD Project, Kargali on 15.12.98 alongwith the relevant papers in support of his claim. In compliance to the letter of the Chief Project Officer, dated 14.12.98 the petitioner met him on the date and time fixed and he was assured that necessary correction will be made and the petitioner's son will be given appointment in place of respondent No. 5 who was stranger illegally inducted in collusion by the officers of respondent. However, when nothing happened for good over four years the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition for the relief as indicated in paragraph-1. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. However, when nothing happened for good over four years the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition for the relief as indicated in paragraph-1. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 at paragraph-48 it has been stated as under:- "That with regard to the statements made in para 25 of the writ application it is being reiterated that no compensation and employment can be given to the petitioner or his son as the land in question will not be utilized for the next five years or in near future as per the planning of the respondent Company." 8. The respondents in their supplementary counter affidavit at paragraph-8, has submitted as under:- "8. That as soon as the respondents came to know about the illegality/ fraud, if so, played by the respondent No.5, an opportunity was immediately given to the petitioner by letter dated 14.12.1999 (Annexure-8) to explain the same." and at paragraph -10, it has been stated as under:- "10. That moreover as soon as the respondents came to know about the illegality/fraud, if so, played by the respondent No.5, the Project Officers, Govindpur Project, Kathara Area was directed by letter dated 31.9.1999 to stop the attendance of the respondent No. 5 as per the direction of the Headquarters," 9. The respondents further in the supplementary affidavit has referred to a letter issued by the Chief Project Officer to the Project Officer dated 31.9.99 in which it has written as under:- "It has been reported that the land offered by him doesn't belong to Sri Loki Mahato. As such his appointment has been done fraudulently. Please stop his attendance forthwith as per direction of the Headquarters and regular charge-sheet and disciplinary action will follow." 10. It has further at page-17 of the supplementary affidavit vide Annexure-C, annexed the office order dated 15.7.2004 vide which the respondent No. 5 was allowed to resume duties after a lapse of five years on the following two condition:- (1) The period of absence from 8.9.1999 to the date of joining being treated as Dies-Non. (2) Sri Loki Mahto should withdraw all the legal cases initiated against the management immediately. 11. (2) Sri Loki Mahto should withdraw all the legal cases initiated against the management immediately. 11. This court further directed the respondents to file second supplementary affidavit vide its order dated 12.1.2009, directing the respondents to file the enquiry proceedings initiated against respondent No. 5 and further the outcome of the cases instituted by respondent No. 5 and also to enclose the final outcome. 12. In compliance thereto the second supplementary counter affidavit was filed in which it was indicated that against respondent No. 5 the following charges were issued vide letter No. 358 dated 27.1.2005 and an explanation was sought. (1) You have suppressed the fact regarding ownership of land under Khata No. 152, Plot No. 3428, Area-1 (one) Acre, at Village-Chalkari and taken employment by fraudulent means." If the above charges are proved, they would constitute act of subversive to discipline and also misconduct under Clause 26:1, 26:9 of the Certified Standing Orders in respect of Central Coalfields Limited and para 6 of your Appointment Letter, which read as follows:- 26: 1.- Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the employer's business or property. 26:9.-Giving of false information regarding one's name, age, father's name, qualification etc, in connection with his employment. (2) Para 6 of Appointment Letter.-Your services are also 'rable to be terminated at any time without notice if any information relating to your claim for employment, relationship, educational qualification, technical qualification or any adverse report about your antecedent are found to be incorrect. 13. In the charge-sheet and the letter it is specifically stated as under:- "It is found that the claim of Shri Laxmi Sao is correct." 14. Respondent No. 5 filed its show cause on 27.1.2005 to the charge-sheet stating that the part of the land in question was donated, thereafter the General Manager (L&R) directed the Project Officer to hold an enquiry and nothing has happened thereafter according to the respondents themselves. 15. This is a classic case where a Public Sector Government Company has filed false and self-contradictory affidavit from time to time. In the first instance the main contention raised in the counter affidavit was that since the land was not being utilized and thus no compensation was payable nor any employment could be given but the fact of non-payment of compensation has not been denied. 16. In the first instance the main contention raised in the counter affidavit was that since the land was not being utilized and thus no compensation was payable nor any employment could be given but the fact of non-payment of compensation has not been denied. 16. In the second supplementary affidavit it has been stated that respondent No. 5 had fraudulently taken the job/appointment and the respondents were put to pressure because of chakka jam and that is how he was allowed to rejoin. This averment is self-contradictory because of the reason that between the years 1999 to 2004 the respondents have themselves stated on oath that respondent No. 5 was stopped from assuming duty. 17. Again in the third affidavit, it has been stated that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated and a charge-sheet was issued to respondent No. 5 but at the same time it has also been stated that he was allowed ,to join in the month of July, 2004 and he assumed his duty and is still continuing. 18. It has further been admitted on affidavit that even his joining was subject to two conditions which has not been followed and there is no dispute on that for the sole reason that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is still pending and no interim protection has been given and the dispute is still pending before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. 19. Finally another false statement that the enquiry is on and the fact remains that pursuant to charge-sheet being issued a show-cause was filed way back in January, 2005 itself and a letter was issued to appoint an enquiry officer but nothing has transpired thereafter and upon specific query it has been stated that the same is pending. 20. There is no denial with regard to acquisition of 4.56 decimals of land under the provisions of Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 by notification dated 3.9.85 which included the lands belonging to the petitioner comprising within Khata No. 152, Plot No. 3428 having the raiyati rights of the petitioner with respect to the lands acquired and the same was verified by the Revenue Authority. The said Authentication Report upon enquiry was found to be in favour of the petitioner and accordingly the claim of ownership was also certified by the competent authority of the State Government. The said Authentication Report upon enquiry was found to be in favour of the petitioner and accordingly the claim of ownership was also certified by the competent authority of the State Government. The aforesaid fact has been recorded by the c.p.a., DR & RD in the charge-sheet issued to respondent No. 5 and the same is quoted as under:- "It was found on enquiry that the land was authenticated in favour of Shri Laxmi Saw. Therefore, his claim for ownership was certified by the competent authority of the State Government." 21. Even in the charge-sheet issued by Respondent-CCL to R-5 it has been recorded as under:- "It is found that the claim of Shri Laxmi Sao is correct." Laxmi Sao is the petitioner herein. 22. It will be evident on reading the aforesaid statement on affidavit made by the respondent that the same is not only false, self-contradictory but also misleading. Filing of false affidavit amounts to perjury and attracts Section 340 Cr.P.C. for initiation of prosecution. Even in the letter issued in the year 1999 a specific averment has been made by the respondent that the claim of the petitioner was justified and he was entitled to compensation and employment. 23. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is allowed. The appointment of respondent NO.5 is quashed and respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are directed to pay the compensation and also give employment in accordance with the Land Loosers Scheme applicable since the acquisition was of more than two acres. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director is directed to depute a responsible officer to hold an enquiry and fix the responsibility against the officers involved in illegally setting up respondent No. 5 as a bogey to replace the genuine owner of the land whose land was acquired more so when it has been admitted. 24. It will thus be in the interest of justice to impose a cost of Rs. 25,000/-(twenty five thousand) on the respondents to be paid to the petitioner who has suffered at the hands of the respondents for nearly 3 decades without even being paid the compensation for acquisition of his land.