Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1915 (JHR)

Sushil Kumar Kisku v. Steel Authority Of India

2018-08-21

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey on behalf of Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the respondent-SAIL. 2. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for direction upon the respondents for quashing the order dated 09.05.2004 passed by the respondent-General Manager in pursuance to the order dated 28.01.2004 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.279 of 2004. The petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents for appointment as per the seniority of the persons of Category-I of displaced person. 3. The brief facts as has been disclosed in the writ application is that earlier the petitioner being displaced person for not appointed under the Land Looser Scheme, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 279 of 2004 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.01.2004 with a liberty to the petitioner to move the competent authority who shall consider the case and pass appropriate orders, in pursuance thereto vide order dated 08.05.2004 Annexure-12 to the writ application, the claim of the petitioner for appointment as a displaced person in Bokaro Steel Plant, has been rejected which is impugned in this writ application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the father of the petitioner was not appointed in the Bokaro Steel Plant as a displaced category rather he was appointed under General Category through direct recruitment. Therefore, the impugned order is assailable on the ground that nobody from the family of the petitioner has got employment under Land Looser Scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no doubt or debate that the petitioner belongs to displaced category and he has got requisite qualification to be absorbed on any of the Class-IVth post but the respondents without considering the matter, rejected the case of the petitioner in a very mechanical and casual manner. 5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents justifying the action of the respondent no.3. In the counter-affidavit, it has been submitted that as per the order passed in L.P.A No.161 & 162 of 1996 (R) that only those displaced persons may be considered for employment whose names were sponsored by Employment Exchange. In the counter-affidavit, it has been submitted that as per the order passed in L.P.A No.161 & 162 of 1996 (R) that only those displaced persons may be considered for employment whose names were sponsored by Employment Exchange. Candidates were provided employment from families displaced as per the land acquisition notification from which no person was employed. In the instant case, the father of the petitioner namely Sri Jitan Manjhi Staff No.017641 has been given employment in Bokaro Steel Plant. Therefore, the petitioner does not belong to an unemployed displaced person category and his case does not merit consideration within the scheme accepted by the Hon''ble High Court. It has further been submitted that in Civil Appeal No.1774 of 2008, the Hon''ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 05.03.2008 held that "it is now high time to put an end to the litigation. It is admitted fact that the project was completed 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 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". 6. Learned counsel for the respondents apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter-affidavit has submitted that the case of the petitioner has been considered in the light of the decision of the Division Bench as well as the scheme which was invoked by the Steel Authority of India Limited. Therefore, there is absolutely no illegality and irregularity on the part of the respondents in passing the impugned order vide Annexure-12 to the writ application. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the documents on records, I find that in pursuance to the order dated 28.01.2004 passed in W.P.(S) No.279 of 2004, the case of the petitioner has been examined thoroughly. It is an admitted position that the father of the petitioner was employed in Bokaro Steel Plant, therefore, petitioner does not belong to the unemployed displaced family. It is an admitted position that the father of the petitioner was employed in Bokaro Steel Plant, therefore, petitioner does not belong to the unemployed displaced family. Apart from that, the decision rendered in W.P.(S) No.279 of 2004 and L.P.A Nos.161 & 162 of 1996 (R), this Court in clear and unequivocal terms has held that the notification meant for appointment of displaced person shall include the persons belonging to an unemployed displaced family since, the petitioner does not come under the scope and ambit of notification, the respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, the impugned order dated 09.05.2004 vide Annexure-12 to the writ application does not warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed.