Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 724 (ORI)

Manas Ranjan Nath v. N. T. P. C. Ltd.

2018-08-08

B.RATH

body2018
JUDGMENT B Rath, J. - By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the opposite parties to sponsor the name of the petitioner to undergo I.T.I. training as a nominee of the land oustee and on completion of the training, the petitioner be provided a job in any Class-IH post in the N.T.P.C. at Kaniha. 2. Short background involved in the case is that petitioner's father's landed properties were acquired for the purpose of establishment of plant and machinery following the Land Acquisition Act. While certificate bearing No.50/2 on 5.6.1989 clearly establishing the same also discloses that the land in question was recorded in the name of common ancestor, namely, Susama Nath. Petitioner claimed that in the process of acquisition, 70% of the landed properties were acquired. It is further disclosed that the State Government constituted a Committee to consider different cases of land oustees in the matter of affording rehabilitation package. It is also pleaded that the Committee duly made a panel for consideration of the name of th e land oustees with a purpose to provide employment. It is asserted that name of Bhuban Mohan Nath, the father of the petitioner was accordingly duly empanelled to get employment under the N.T.P.C. Petitioner's father appeared in the interview test but he could not succeed. It is further claimed that as per the scheme formulated by N.T.P.C., petitioner's father was kept in the category of Substantial Affected Person (for short "SAP") and his name was accordingly found in Sl.No.209 of the SAP category. It is clarified that for the provision in the scheme, persons enlisted in the SAP category were entitled to get job in the N.T.P.C. It is, thus, alleged that when the N.T.P.C. has accommodated other similarly situated persons, illegally declined to accommodate either the father of the petitioner or his legal heirs in the matter of providing employment opportunity. The petitioner submitted a representation before the opposite party no.1 on 7.8.2001 requesting them to sponsor the name of the petitioner to undergo Artisan training under I.T.I. for the session 2001. The petitioner submitted a representation before the opposite party no.1 on 7.8.2001 requesting them to sponsor the name of the petitioner to undergo Artisan training under I.T.I. for the session 2001. In the process, the petitioner's father also filed an affidavit nominating the name of the petitioner indicating therein that his son is qualified to be sponsored for I.T.I. training and consequently also could be employed in N.T.P.C. In the premises of discrimination and violation of provision at Article 14 of the Constitution of India, petitioner alleged that the N.T.P.C. has given unfair treatment to the father of the petitioner as well as to the petitioner. Petitioner accordingly prayed for the relief, as indicated hereinabove. 3. Filing counter affidavit, the opposite party no.2, the Land Acquisition Officer while disputing the claim of the petitioner contended that father of the petitioner had not lost all his landed properties in the acquisition process. Further, his father was also having land in several other villages such as Bijigol and Baradangua. So far as acquisition of land in the village Bhimkund is concerned, the opposite party no.2 submitted that from and out of Khata No.45 measuring Ac.1.33 decimals, Ac.0.34 decimals and from Khata No.116, out of Ac.1.65 decimals, Ac.1.57 decimals of land has been acquired and his father is a co-awardee for the joint family holding of the property. Opposite party no.2 further contended that total percentage of loss of land of the petitioner's father comes to 47% of land. In the premises that the Substantial Affected Persons are those, who have lost /rd or more than that of his total land and the scheme provides several rehabilitation benefits apart from the land acquisition benefit, opposite party no.2 contended that father of the petitioner was initially opted for shop, which was allowed by the competent authority. Subsequently, the father of the petitioner changed his option from shop to land, which was also been allowed vide order No.09/22/01.2001 of Rehabilitation Officer, MCl/ntPC, Talcher. Further, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was also paid to the father of the petitioner towards additional compensation. It is on the premises that father of the petitioner has already availed the benefits under the scheme, opposite party no.2 contended that neither the father of the petitioner nor the petitioner is entitled to any further benefit. 4. Further, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was also paid to the father of the petitioner towards additional compensation. It is on the premises that father of the petitioner has already availed the benefits under the scheme, opposite party no.2 contended that neither the father of the petitioner nor the petitioner is entitled to any further benefit. 4. Filing an affidavit pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 31.10.2017, the opposite party no.2 stated that the father of the petitioner had not taken the benefit of allotment of land in spite of several notices issued to him by R.O., Talcher. The family of the petitioner has lost in total Ac.1.91 decimals out of Ac.4.04 decimals of land and the compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- kept in F.D.R. on being refused the present value of the F.D.R. becomes Rs. 1,07,942/- . 5. Advancing his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner apart from reiterating the factual aspects, indicated hereinabove also submitted that for the father of the petitioner loosing valuable land, petitioner is entitled to employment. In filing additional affidavit, petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that in the meantime, the petitioner has already undertaken I.T.I. training in Fitter Trade on his own and, therefore, the petitioner restricted his prayer only to employment. Similarly, opposite party no.2 reiteration of its stand in the counter as well as the affidavit, contended that for the benefits already given, the petitioner is not entitled to employment. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds there remains no dispute that almost 50% of the land of the petitioner's father along with other co-sharers has been acquired for the purpose of construction of N.T.P.C. There is also no denial to the fact that the father of the petitioner apart from receiving compensation for loss of his land on account of the joint family land, was also offered for a shop premises following the assurance vide packages in the rehabilitation scheme. Materials also go to show that the father of the petitioner has also changed his option from shop room to land. It further appears, land though offered to the petitioner's father, as clearly stated vide Order No.09/22/01-2001, the petitioner's father was also offered with a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. For petitioner's father not receiving the same, the amount is being kept in fixed deposit. It further appears, land though offered to the petitioner's father, as clearly stated vide Order No.09/22/01-2001, the petitioner's father was also offered with a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. For petitioner's father not receiving the same, the amount is being kept in fixed deposit. Presently, the compensation with interest amount being kept in fixed deposit, the present entitlement through the F.D.R. comes to Rs. 1,07,942/-. 7. Now coming to look to the rehabilitation policy, as appended at Annexure-4, this Court finds there is no denial to the existence of a rehabilitation policy by the management. In Clause 3.6 of the scheme, this Court finds for the purpose of rehabilitation measures, the company has provided the following : "3.6 Rehabilitation Measures; Rehabilitation of PAPs involves two distinct aspects: (i) compensation for losses in terms of land, cash and other forms; and (ii) assistance to start a new life in terms of opportunities, training, credit and community services for schooling and health and new employment opportunities. Measures to be undertaken by NTPC are set out below." Under Clause 3.15, the scheme also provides provision for jobs which reads as follows: "3.15 JOBS Jobs will be given to some eligible PAPS on preferential basis as under: (a) Jobs with NTPC: NTPC projects do not envisage significant job opportunities to the local residents. However, some jobs will be earmarked for the PAPs in the unskilled and semi-skilled category. However, preference will be given to eligible PAPs if they meet the job requirements in the skilled categories." (b) Jobs with contractors: Contractors will be persuaded to give jobs to eligible PAPs on a preferential basis where reasible. Reading of both the aforesaid clauses, this Court nowhere finds there is guarantee of job to everybody. So far as job facility is concerned, the job is available for consideration to project affected persons, who have lost entire land in the acquisition process. Petitioner's father does not fall to this category. 8. From the submission of the petitioner as well as counter of the opposite party no.2, it becomes clear that petitioner's father has not lost all his land. Further, for the providing of compensation of Rs. Petitioner's father does not fall to this category. 8. From the submission of the petitioner as well as counter of the opposite party no.2, it becomes clear that petitioner's father has not lost all his land. Further, for the providing of compensation of Rs. 50,000/-, apart from acceptance of the offer of the option rendered by the father of the petitioner for land in place of shop room in addition to the compensation for acquisition of land, this Court finds, the petitioner is not entitled to anything further. Accordingly, while declining to grant the relief of employment, claimed by the petitioner, this Court directs the petitioner's father to receive the compensation amount along with interest lying with the N.T.P.C. on proper identification. 9. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and by refusing to accept the prayer of the petitioner for employment. No cost.