Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 818 (JHR)

Mahendra Kisku v. Damodar Valley Corp.

2018-04-10

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
ORDER S.N. Pathak, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondent to consider his case for appointment in view of Land Looser Scheme. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows:- Father of the petitioner namely Mihir Kumar was one of the land loosers of the lands situated at Mauza Manjhladih, P.S. Nirsa, Distt. Dhanbad, in lieu of which he was offered appointment and his name was in the list of 788 persons selected for appointment. The said list has been approved upto the Hon''ble Supreme Court in appeal preferred by the respondent-DVC i.e. Civil Appeal No. 1757 of 1992. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid land was acquired for the purpose of Maithan Dam and in lieu of that, compensation amount plus employment was to be allocated to the awardee Shambhu Nath Kisku or his heirs and successor. The petitioner is the decedent of Awardee, Shambhu Nath Kisku and is a displaced person and as such, he is entitled for job in DVC. Inspite of the aforesaid fact neither the petitioner nor his father was ever offered job though they made several representation before the respondents-DVC. It is the further case of the petitioner that about 91 aggrieved persons through Union filed writ petition before the Hon''ble Calcutta High Court and the Hon''ble Court had disposed of the said writ petition holding therein that these 91 persons were entitled to be absorbed by the DVC as per law and hence, directed the DVC to absorb them without further delay. The Hon''ble Court has also held that all these persons have able to prove the authenticity of their lands through Affidavits. Thereafter, the DVC had challenged the order of the learned Single Judge before the Division Bench of Hon''ble Calcutta High Court by preferring Appeal. However, the Division Bench had dismissed the said Appeal. It is the further case of the petitioner that the DVC thereafter issued a Circular dated 06.04.1990, wherein it has been mentioned that one person from a family, either son or grandson of the originally displaced person, could be considered for employment in lieu of land taken by the DVC for its project. It is the further case of the petitioner that the DVC thereafter issued a Circular dated 06.04.1990, wherein it has been mentioned that one person from a family, either son or grandson of the originally displaced person, could be considered for employment in lieu of land taken by the DVC for its project. The Division Bench of Hon''ble Calcutta High Court, while disposing of the Contempt Petition preferred by the petitioners, had directed the respondent-DVC that if all the persons who are land looser, could not be absorbed at a time, the DVC was told to restrain from making any appointment in future without absorbing the 91 writ petitioners. It had further been directed that the DVC would not take a plea that the petitioner have crossed the maximum age limit and issue appointment letter forthwith subject to medical fitness without any further plea. However, in the panel prepared by the DVC the names of 4 petitioners only out of 91 found place. Subsequently, the respondent-DVC filed Civil Appeal No. 1757 of 1992, arising out of SLP (C). No. 4204 of 1992, before the Hon''ble Apex Court. The Hon''ble Supreme Court had directed the respondents to add the name of rest of the petitioners so that total number of persons became 788. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the direction of Hon''ble Supreme Court, respondents are required to appoint persons from the panel of 788 for group ''O'' post, as and when vacancies arises. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he had also filed an I.A. No. 17 of 2014 in Civil Appeal No. 1757 of 1992 before the Hon''ble Supreme Court, praying therein for a direction upon the respondent-DVC to immediately and forthwith absorb the petitioner in terms of the policy decision of the DVC and also in view of orders passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. In reply to the I.A. preferred by the petitioner, the respondent-DVC replied that the petitioner was earlier offered but he declined to join vide his letter dated 20.01.2001. In view of such submission made by respondent-DVC, the Hon''ble Supreme Court disposing of the said I.A. vide its order dated 17.12.2014 had given liberty to the petitioner to approach before the High Court ventilating his grievances as a fresh cause of action. In view of such submission made by respondent-DVC, the Hon''ble Supreme Court disposing of the said I.A. vide its order dated 17.12.2014 had given liberty to the petitioner to approach before the High Court ventilating his grievances as a fresh cause of action. Thereafter, in view of the orders passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court, the petitioner filed representation before the respondent-DVC vide his representation dated 13.08.2015 for consideration of his case for appointment in view of order passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court as well as by the Hon''ble Calcutta High Court but till date nothing has been done and hence, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Hon''ble Court for redressal of his grievances. 4. Mr. M.K. Laik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. Mohua Palit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner very fairly submits that already the issue has been considered by the Hon''ble Apex Court as well as by the Hon''ble Calcutta High Court and direction has been given to consider the case of the petitioner by the respondent-DVC. However, as no order has been passed by the respondent-DVC. learned senior counsel prays that a direction be given to the respondent-DVC to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the observations made by the Hon''ble Apex Court as well as by the Hon''ble Calcutta High Court and pass a reasoned order on the pending representation of the petitioner. 5. Per contra, no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Srijit Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents admits that already the issue has been decided by the Hon''ble Calcutta High Court and the same was affirmed by the Hon''ble Apex Court with a direction to the respondent-DVC to consider the cases for employment of the writ petitioners therein. As an order has been passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in case of the petitioner herein also, the same shall be considered and a reasoned order shall be passed, in accordance with law. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that since already an order has been passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court to consider the case of the petitioner but till date no order has been passed on his pending representation, I hereby direct the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the case of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order on his pending representation, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, taking into consideration the order passed by the Hon''ble Calcutta High Court which was affirmed by the Hon''ble Apex Court. 7. It goes without saying that upon such consideration, if it is found that the case of the petitioner is fit for appointment, an order to that effect shall be passed and letter of appointment shall be issued to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If it is found that the case of the petitioner is not fit for consideration and offer of appointment cannot be given to him, a reason order in this regard be passed and shall also be communicated to the petitioner within a further period of three weeks thereafter. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition stands disposed of.