Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 909 (JHR)

Nrisingh Prasad Tiwary v. Coal India Limited

2015-08-03

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2015
ORDER : The petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the order dated 07.04.2006 passed by the respondent No. 2, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Eastern Coal Fields Limited whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for providing further three employments in the Company has been rejected. 2. The case of the petitioner in a nutshell is that there existed a coal mine patch in Nawadih Mouza which is known as Kastha Area which comes under the Eastern Coal Fields Limited. In order to exploit the coal which falls under the Jamtara District a deed of agreement/licence was entered into on 19.06.1989 between Hari Prasad Tiwary (father of the petitioner) and the General Manager, Kastha Area. The agreement which was executed on 19.06.1989 contained certain terms which made the land owner entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 10,000/-per acre and one employment for every two acres of land. In terms of the agreement the possession of the land was given to the respondents and the respondents started excavating coal from the land but only five employments were given against the land in question. The petitioner has subsequently claimed three more employments for the near dependents but the said applications were rejected. It is the case of the petitioner that three strangers were sought to be given employment but on bringing to the notice of the higher authority, the aforesaid fact the application of those strangers were rejected. In such circumstance, since three more employments were available to the petitioner in terms of the agreement and since the respondents were not paying any heed a writ application was preferred by the landlord namely Hari Prasad Tiwary. This Court in W.P.(C) No. 4588 of 2001 gave liberty to the petitioner to submit three names before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Eastern Coal Fields Limited, Sanctoria Disergarh who was to re-consider the names within a period of three months. A reasoned order was passed by Chairman-cum-Managing Committee on 07.04.2006 rejecting the claim of the petitioner which has resulted in filing of the present writ application. 3. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. A reasoned order was passed by Chairman-cum-Managing Committee on 07.04.2006 rejecting the claim of the petitioner which has resulted in filing of the present writ application. 3. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly there was an agreement between the father of the petitioner and the General Manager, Kastha Area in which it was agreed that Eastern Coal Fields Limited shall exploit and excavate the coal found for which the licensor shall be entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 10,000/-per acre of land and one employment for two acres of land. Since 18 acres of land was involved in the said transaction accordingly learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the licensor was entitled to claim eight employments in terms of the decision of the Management as contained in the note sheet dated 17.06.1989. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that only five employments have been provided and although three names have been forwarded to the Management but the same was rejected by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director on grounds which are arbitrary and capricious as the respondent No. 2 had entered into a realm which is beyond the purview of the scheme/agreement since the respondent No. 2 was only to consider as to whether the three names submitted was eligible to secure appointment in terms of the agreement and note sheet of the Management. In such circumstances it has been prayed that the impugned order dated 07.04.2006 be set aside and necessary orders be passed directing the respondents to provide appointment to three persons named therein. 5. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that upon proper scrutiny and verification employment was provided to five persons by the competent authority in 1990. It has further been submitted that the land in question was abandoned in the year 1994 much prior to the expiry of the agreement and the land was handed over to the possession of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the land in question was abandoned in the year 1994 much prior to the expiry of the agreement and the land was handed over to the possession of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that once the licensor namely Hari Prasad Tiwary had died and the land has been returned back to the possession of the legal heirs of the licensor, the Scheme dated 26.12.1989 has automatically come to an end and the claim of the petitioner for appointment cannot be an endless process. 6. The father of the petitioner had moved this Court earlier in W.P.(C) No. 4588 of 2001 who was substituted by his legal heirs during the pendency of the said writ application. In the order passed in the writ application this Court specifically held that it was not inclined to decide the claim on merit as to who are rest of the persons to be appointed as per the Scheme. The three names were proposed supposedly being related to the family of the original petitioner who came within the definition of 'land looser'. The impugned order reflects that the petitioner had made himself present before the respondent No. 2 since it was the petitioner on the death of the licensor who had nominated three names for the purpose of employment i.e. Deepak Kumar Pandey, Taposi Rani Tiwary and Rohit Kumar Tiwary. On being questioned by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner had submitted that Deepak Kumar Pandey is his son-in-law, Rohit Tiwary is his brother-in-law and M/s Taposi Tiwary is the daughter of his younger brother namely Dr. Ram Dular Tiwary. On an earlier occasion also three persons were nominated by the licensor namely Amarjit Chatterjee, Arun Mukherjee and Sewak Ram but since they were not provided with employment they moved the Kolkata, High Court which passed an order in their favour but the appeal preferred by the Management was allowed and those three persons could not be provided with employment. The period of licence executed on 19.06.1989 already expired on 18.06.1999. The licensor had nominated five members and all were provided with employment. Subsequent efforts with respect to three more employments in terms of the agreement resulted in a failure. The validity of the agreement continued to remain in operation for a period of ten years and within that period only five employments were provided. The licensor had nominated five members and all were provided with employment. Subsequent efforts with respect to three more employments in terms of the agreement resulted in a failure. The validity of the agreement continued to remain in operation for a period of ten years and within that period only five employments were provided. Efforts made by the licensor at a later stage to nominate three more members did not succeed and, therefore, three more names had been nominated by the present petitioner for consideration which has been rejected by the respondent No. 2. The names which have been nominated subsequently does not seem to be dependents of the petitioner as one nominee is the niece of the petitioner whereas the other two nominees are son-in-law and brother-in-law. The agreement entered between licensor and the Management cannot be stretched beyond what has been deliberated in the said agreement. The respondents have submitted that from 1994 onwards the land has not been worked upon. The validity of the agreement was till 1999 but even after expiry of more than fifteen years and after more than twenty five years from the date of the agreement the controversy with respect to providing employment to three more dependents does not seem to die. The petitioner cannot be permitted to agitate his claim for three more employments on the basis of an agreement which expired in the year 1999 itself. When the agreement was entered into the licensor had the right to nominate eight persons who were dependents. No dispute was raised with respect to the five nominated persons who were provided with employment. But in course of time whatever names have been nominated either by the licensor or by the present petitioner seems to be only for the purpose of grabbing the employments as the relationship of the nominated members with the petitioner does not suggest that they were/are the dependents of licensor/writ petitioner. The entire gamut of the claim is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. If employments are continued to be provided in such manner based on a document which has lost his force way back such acts will deprive the genuine and legitimate candidates from securing employment. Such type of back door employment in the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot be allowed to occur. If employments are continued to be provided in such manner based on a document which has lost his force way back such acts will deprive the genuine and legitimate candidates from securing employment. Such type of back door employment in the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot be allowed to occur. Reference in this connection has been made by the learned counsel for the respondents to the judgment in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant through S.S. Bhardwaj, Principal Law Officer, B.S.L., P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro & Ors. v. Jamuna Prasad Mahto & Ors. reported in [ 2004 (4) JCR 526 (Jhr)] wherein while considering unending applications for securing job in Bokaro Steel Limited on the ground of being displaced it was held as follows:- “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.” 7. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no legal right subsists in favour of the petitioner to claim appointment for the nominated persons and having considered such claim the respondent No. 2 has rightly passed an order of rejection. Accordingly, this writ application being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed.