Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 804 (MP)

Nyamat Khan v. Western Coal Fields

2013-07-15

A.K.Shrivastava

body2013
ORDER 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- A. That, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records under the possession of the respondents with regard to acquisition of land and grant of employment to son of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. B. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 8.8.2012 passed by the respondents, in the interest of justice. C. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give employment to son of the petitioner in lieu of land of the petitioner acquired by the respondents in the interest of justice. D. Any other reliefs which may be deemed necessary in the interest of justice may also be granted by this Hon’ble Court. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the earlier round of litigation when a writ petition was filed by the petitioner which was registered as W.P. No.2265/2008, this Court directed the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in view of the decision of this Court dated 22.9.2011 passed in W.P. No.4473/2008 (Smt. Bhaggan Bai v. Western Coal Fields Limited and another). Vehemently, it has been argued by Shri Dubey that in the decision of Smt. Bhaggan Bai (Annexure-P/13) this Court has categorically directed to decide the case on the basis of representation filed by petitioner of that case to provide employment to one person in the family. Learned counsel submits that instead of considering the case of the petitioner for providing employment, representation has been considered in respect to providing monetary benefit only and thus he has been discriminated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the land of the petitioner was acquired, therefore, under the policy dated 22.12.1984 (Annexure-P/12) the petitioner is entitled for employment and the respondents are promissory estopped for not providing the employment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the land of the petitioner was acquired, therefore, under the policy dated 22.12.1984 (Annexure-P/12) the petitioner is entitled for employment and the respondents are promissory estopped for not providing the employment. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon three decisions of Supreme Court they are Surya Narain Yadav and others v. Bihar State Electricity Board and others AIR 1985 SC 941 Para 4, Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1992 SC 920 para 2 and Babua Ram and others v. State of U.P. and another (1995)2 SCC 689 para 6 and 7. It has also been put-forth by learned counsel that by considering the aforesaid policy several persons have been given employment. 3. On the other hand, Shri Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for respondents submitted that earlier petition was for providing compensation and there was no relief to provide the employment in that petition. It is also propounded by him that said petition (W.P. No.2265/2008) was filed on the basis of representation which the petitioner earlier made vide Annexure-P/11 dated 5.12.2007 and since limited relief was sought in the representation as well as in the petition, therefore, now a U-turn cannot be taken by the petitioner to provide employment to his son. Learned counsel further submits that as per Clause (i) of the policy (Annexure-P/12) the standard norm should be one employment for the persons where three acres of un-irrigated land or two acres of irrigated land has been acquired. Learned counsel submits that admittedly the land 1.26 hectare which is equal to 3.11 acre un-irrigated land belongs to two brothers namely Nyamat Khan (present petitioner) and Liyakat Khan was acquired and therefore the petitioner was having only half share in the land which was acquired which comes to less than 3 acres of un-irrigated land. Thus, the petitioner cannot be permitted to ask to provide employment to his son when he became major in the year 2002 looking to the Clause (i) of the norms of the policy (Annexure-P/2) mentioning that who can be taken in the employment. Learned counsel has placed heavy reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Butu Prasad Kumbhar and others v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others 1995 JLJ 463 . Learned counsel has placed heavy reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Butu Prasad Kumbhar and others v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others 1995 JLJ 463 . Learned Counsel is also placing reliance upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A. No.829/2010 (Chhabbilal v. Western Coal Field Ltd. and Others) decided on 26.10.2010 (Annexure-P/13). Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the Full Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in Ravindra Kumar v. District Magistrate, Agra and others (2005) I UPLBEC 118 (FB). Thus, learned counsel submitted that this petition be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Undisputedly, a representation dated 5.12.2007 (Annexure-P/11) was submitted by the petitioner to provide monetary benefit to him. Specifically in this representation it has been stated by the petitioner that instead of giving employment to his son Akhtar till he attains age of 60 years, a sum of Rs.3,000/- be paid to him, which has not yet been given for him and thus it was requested by petitioner in his representation that said amount be paid regularly to him. When the representation was not decided by the respondents, the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court which was registered as W.P. No.2265/2008 in which it has been directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of decision of Smt. Bhaggan Bai (Annexure-P/13) by passing a reasoned order. Thereafter a reasoned order has been passed by respondents on 8.8.2012 vide Annexure-P/3 and the representation of the petitioner to provide employment to his son was not taken into account because his earlier representation was only to provide monetary benefit. The representation has been rejected by the respondents on the ground that land was acquired in the year 1991 and there is no provision for payment of subsistence allowance in the R and R Policy of Coal Field India Ltd. and hence the representation was not allowed. I do not find any illegality in passing the said order by respondent No. 3, because there is no provision in the R and R Policy of Coal Field India Ltd. to provide subsistence allowance to the petitioner. I do not find any illegality in passing the said order by respondent No. 3, because there is no provision in the R and R Policy of Coal Field India Ltd. to provide subsistence allowance to the petitioner. That apart in the impugned order it has been mentioned that in the year 2003 petitioner was asking to provide employment to his son who has become major and by somersaulting his stand in 2005 he asked to provide subsistence allowance. Hence, the stand of petitioner is not certain and firm. 6. That apart since the petitioner is having only half share in 3.11 acres of joint land of petitioner and his brother Liyakat Khan and therefore the land fell in the share of petitioner is less than the area prescribed in the policy. Hence I am of the view that petitioner is not having any right to ask for employment to his son. There is a direct decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.829/2010 wherein by placing reliance upon para 6 of the said decision of Butu Prasad Kumbhar (supra), the Division Bench declined to provide employment because there was no legal right to claim appointment in lieu of compensation and no mandamus was issued. It would be profitable to quote para 6 of decision of Supreme Court in Butu Prasad Kumbhar which reads thus:- “Needless to say that petitioners or their ancestors were not deprived of their land without following the procedure established in law. Their land was taken under the Land Acquisition Act. They were paid compensation for it. Therefore, the challenge raised on violation of Article 21 is devoid of any merit. Even otherwise the obligation of the State to ensure that no citizen is deprived of his livelihood does not extend to provide employment to every member of each family displaced in consequence of acquisition of land.” On the same point there is decision of Allahabad High Court presided by M. Katju (as His Lordship then was) in case of Ravindra Kumar (supra). 7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any merit in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.