Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1067 (CAL)

Mohit Kr. Maji v. Union of India

2023-07-04

BIBEK CHAUDHURI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Bibek Chaudhuri, J. 1. Indisputably litigations in perpetuity have been going on not only before this Court but also before other High Courts filed by the land losers or their family members with a prayer for appointment in different steel plants under the administrative control of the Steel Authority of India Limited. 2. Let me now briefly narrate the facts of the case. For development and expansion of IISCO Steel Plant some land was required. The State Government in acquisition process vide L.A. Case No. LA-11/32R/88-89 acquired considerable portion of land in the mouzas of Nakrasota, Kaliapur, Baradighari, Hirapur, Sarmara and Purushottampur within P.S. Hirapur, undivided Burdwan. The area of the land acquisition was measuring 308 acres. The said land was handed over to IISCO for expansion of the plant. 3. Within the said land there was a temple called by the local people as “Jhoroburi” temple. A dispute cropped up between the Steel Plant Authority and the local villagers on the issue of shifting the said temple. Subsequently, the land losers and the local people started agitation for employment in addition to the compensation granted by the IISCO to the land losers in accordance with law. IISCO prepared a list of 178 candidates being the land losers or their relatives and sent it to the State Government for verification. After getting the verification report the IISCO made arrangement for their training and on receiving training successfully they were absorbed in the establishment of IISCO. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that they are also similarly placed persons and they have been discriminated by not offering the job by IISCO and the said authority being an instrumentality of the Central Government violated the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioners at the outset takes me to an offer of appointment for the post of attendant-cum-technician (trainee) given to one Ms. Sumana Ghosh (Roy) on 13th January, 2016. It is submitted by Mr. Ahammed, learned advocate for the petitioners that immediately after issuance of the said appointment letter to 178 land losers the petitioners being the similarly placed have filed the instant writ petition. 6. Sumana Ghosh (Roy) on 13th January, 2016. It is submitted by Mr. Ahammed, learned advocate for the petitioners that immediately after issuance of the said appointment letter to 178 land losers the petitioners being the similarly placed have filed the instant writ petition. 6. The learned advocate for the petitioners also refers to a letter dated 16th May, 2013 written by the Deputy General Manager (PERS), SAIL to one Ashis Majhi, one of the petitioners herein stating, inter alia, that based on the list of names of villagers whose lands have been acquired for ISP, provided by the Govt. of West Bengal, ISP under its CSR initiatives has undertaken the training of 178 land losers through Governments ITIs under Craftsmen Training Scheme (CTS) to make them employable for the purpose of earning livelihood. 7. It is contended by Mr. Ahammed that when the said letter was issued, the petitioners came to know that 178 land losers were given training in ITIs run by the State Government to make them employable. It is also submitted by Mr. Ahammed referring to a letter dated 6th July, 2015 which is an information upon an application under the RTI Act that the petitioners came to know the details of the land losers and their relatives who received employment by now in the establishment of IISCO. Thus, it is contended by Mr. Ahammed that the petitioners being similarly placed are entitled to similar treatment by the State and they have approached this Court at the earliest opportunity immediately after receiving information that 178 land losers or their relatives were given training to make them employable in IISCO. 8. Thus, it is contended by Mr. Ahmed that the petitioners being similarly placed are entitled to similar treatment by the State and they have approached this Court at the earliest opportunity immediately after receiving information that 178 land losers or their relatives were given training to make them employable in IISCO. 9. Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6, on the other hand, submits that the scheme of providing employment to the land losers in addition to payment of compensation has been abolished way back on 3rd February, 1986 vide BPEOM No. 15/13/84-BPE(C) dated 3rd February, 1986. Mr. 9. Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6, on the other hand, submits that the scheme of providing employment to the land losers in addition to payment of compensation has been abolished way back on 3rd February, 1986 vide BPEOM No. 15/13/84-BPE(C) dated 3rd February, 1986. Mr. Gupta specifically refers to Clauses IV and V of Rule 4 of the said OM which deals with the issue of rehabilitation of the land loser. Clauses IV and V are reproduced below:- IV. The project authorities should be directed to examine the list of awardee families eligible for rehabilitation assistance receipt from the Rehabilitation Cell with reference to their education attainments and arranged for imparting to them suitable education and training to equip them to be considered for employment in the project subject to availability of vacancies. Such education and training should be imparted through the existing and available training institutions of the State and the Central Government. The project authorities may meet the cost of training of the persons who are selected from among the evictee families. If suitable disciplines or faculties required for the needs of the public sector undertakings are not available with the existing training institutions, the project authorities should undertake to fund and start such training courses which will equip candidates for employment in the public sector undertakings. Such training given at the cost of public sector undertakings should not be presumed to be a commitment for ultimate employment in the undertaking concern. The main idea is to enable some members of the evictee families to qualify themselves for employment and compete for the same along with the others. V. In the context of the urgent necessity of public sector enterprises operating at commercially viable levels and generating adequate internal resources, over–manning has to be guarded against. Any understanding formal or informal, in regard to offer of employment to one member of every dispossessed family in the project will stand withdrawn. However, with a view to encouraging the dispossessed families taking to useful avocations like poultry farming, animal husbandry etc. The project authorities will assist the concerned State Governments in organizing and financing such activities. The basic responsibilities of initiative such schemes will be that of the State Governments. 10. However, with a view to encouraging the dispossessed families taking to useful avocations like poultry farming, animal husbandry etc. The project authorities will assist the concerned State Governments in organizing and financing such activities. The basic responsibilities of initiative such schemes will be that of the State Governments. 10. Thus, it is clear from Clause V that the liability of providing employment to the land losers or their relatives causes over-manning of the public sector enterprises which was to be guarded against. Thus, it is held that in understanding, formal or informal, in regard to offer of employment to one member of every dispossessed family in the project will stand withdrawn. The said order also provided alternative information stating, inter alia, that with a view to encouraging the dispossessed families taking to useful avocations like poultry farming, animal husbandry etc., the project authorities will assist the concerned State Governments in organizing and financing such activities. Thus, the offer of employment to one member of every dispossessed family in the project stood withdrawn with effect from 3rd February, 1986. It is also contended by Mr. Gupta that the aforesaid office memorandum was not placed before any Court previously which resulted in issuing writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to offer employment to the members of every dispossessed family or, in other words, land losers and their relatives. Had it been placed before hand there might not have been similar type of litigation piled up in the Courts of the country. In support of his contention, Mr. Gupta refers to a Division Bench decision of Jharkhand High Court reported in 2014 SCC Online Jhar 1209 : Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors. Vs. Rati Ram Manjhi & Ors. The factual circumstances narrated in paragraph 2 of the aforesaid report recorded the facts of the case which are almost similar to the facts involved in the instant case. 11. The Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1774/2008 decided on 5th March, 2008 : Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Deby Lal Mahato & Ors. Paragraphs 9 to 12 of Deby Lal Mahato & Ors. (supra) are relevant and recorded as hereunder:- “9. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Deby Lal Mahato & Ors. Paragraphs 9 to 12 of Deby Lal Mahato & Ors. (supra) are relevant and recorded as hereunder:- “9. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has invited our attention to subsequent Memorandum of the Government dated 3.2.1986 in which it was clearly mentioned in sub-para (V) of para 4 as under: In the context of the urgent necessity of public sector enterprises operating at commercially viable levels and generating adequate internal resources, over manning has to be guarded against, any understanding formal or informal in regard to offer of employment to one member of every dispossessed family in the project will stand withdrawn. 10. It is unfortunate that despite the scheme having been withdrawn way back in 1986, the same finds no mention in any of the litigation which has arisen with regard to the project. If the decision to withdraw the scheme was already taken by the Government of India in 1986 then that should have been brought to the notice of the Courts at appropriate time that whatever scheme that had to be implemented had in fact been already implemented and henceforth no further employment would be given in terms of the scheme to such landless people whose lands had been acquired. Had this fact been brought to the notice of the Courts by the parties perhaps things would have been different. But unfortunately, this basic fact has been lost sight of and this has resulted in a large number of litigation and the present contempt petitions before the High Court are an outcome of this. 11. Be that as it may, it is now high time to put an end to the litigation. It is an 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 rehabilitate the landless people whose lands had been acquired and 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. At the relevant time, the intention of the government was to rehabilitate the landless people whose lands had been acquired and 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. This is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. 12. However, in order to put an end to the controversy at hand, we direct that the 970 persons whose names have been included in category (ii) as per order dated 7.4.1998 of the High Court will be considered for appointment, other things being equal. It is submitted by counsel for the Appellant that in the advertisement dated on 1.6.2007 for 300 general vacancies it has been mentioned that preference will be given to those displaced persons whose lands have been acquired. The relevant portion of the advertisement reads as under: Preference will be given to local displaced persons of Bokaro as per Company’s policy. It may be made clear that consideration of the names of persons for employment does not give them a right to appointment. Other things being equal, they will be given preference in the matter of employment as and when vacancies arise”. 12. Therefore, in the light of the Memorandum of the Government dated 3rd February, 1986, withdrawing the scheme of offer of employment to one member of every dispossessed family in the project, the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that it was not the intention of the Government to describe this kind of largesse on an indefinite basis, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. Relying on the said judgment the Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Steel Authority of India Limited setting aside the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge. 13. Mr. Ahmed, in reply, submits that if the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deby Lal Mahato be read with reference to the fact of the said case, the ratio laid down in the said report supports the petitioners. In this regard, he refers to paragraph 5 of the said judgment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to record that as per the direction given by the High Court, two lists of displaced persons were prepared. In this regard, he refers to paragraph 5 of the said judgment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to record that as per the direction given by the High Court, two lists of displaced persons were prepared. Category (i) list consisted of persons whose lands along with buildings were acquired and category (ii) list consisted of persons whose lands alone were acquired. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment states that so far as the list of category (ii) is concerned, the DPLR gave a list of 970 persons because the list of category (i) had already been exhausted and all the persons whose names were forwarded by the DPLR were given employment except those who were found to be medically unfit/unsuitable/ineligible. Then on 1.6.2007 the Appellant advertised for 300 general vacancies in the company and the same were filled up after due selection process and the 26 persons who moved for contempt were also selected in the said process, other things being equal. Then Mr. Ahmed takes me to paragraph 14 of the said report which is the conclusion and ordering portion of the said report delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Paragraph 14 runs thus:- “14. In the result, we set aside the judgment and order dated 3/10.01.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and dismiss the contempt proceedings pending before it. We allow this appeal with the direction that the 970 persons whose names appear in category (ii) as per the direction of the High Court 7.4.1998 shall be considered and given preference for employment, other things being equal” 14. Thus, it is submitted by Mr. Ahmed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court never held that the said 970 persons whose names for employment were not considered would not be at all considered by the appellants. On the other hand, direction was issued in respect of the said 970 persons for being considered and given preference for employment by the appellants. 15. It is also submitted by Mr. Ahammed that the process of employment given to 178 candidates was done without informing all the land losers or their relatives who were also eligible for employment at the relevant point of time. The said names were verified and forwarded by the State Government. 15. It is also submitted by Mr. Ahammed that the process of employment given to 178 candidates was done without informing all the land losers or their relatives who were also eligible for employment at the relevant point of time. The said names were verified and forwarded by the State Government. At the time of forwarding the names of 178 candidates the State Government did not mention that there were other similarly placed land losers or their relatives who are also entitled to be employed. Thus, the State Government failed to demonstrate the rationality of inclusion of only 178 candidates for employment and omission of the other eligible candidates. The respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 had also the obligation to consider the case of all the land losers relating to their claim of employment. It is also submitted by Mr. Ahmed that a scheme cannot be implemented in a piecemeal manner. 16. In order to demonstrate the issue that the OM dated 3.2.1986 was not considered even subsequently by respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6. The learned Advocate for the petitioners refers to the minutes of the meeting dated 26th October, 1981 wherein it was held in point no. 10 that the employment will be offered to all candidates initially as per Company’s Rule and if any qualified candidate exists, his case will be considered in case of vacancy. This relates to the plant of IISCO at Bokaro. He also refers to a press release issued by the Ministry of Steel, Government of India dated 18th March, 2013. In the said information it was disclosed by the Ministry of Steel, Government of India that in principle, it was agreed to provide employment to at least one member of the displaced family initially. BSL (Bokaro Steel Plant) has so far provided employment to more than 16,000 displaced persons, which is much more than the members of the families originally displaced. Employment of displaced persons at SAIL/BSL is now being regulated in terms of the DPE Guideline and legal pronouncements. 17. Mr. Ahammed also takes me to an application being CAN/1/2021 filed in the instant writ petition by the petitioners praying for appropriate order and refers to annexure – ‘C’ at page 36 of the said application being the recruitment advertisement in SAIL-ISP, Burnpur dated 15th November, 2018. 17. Mr. Ahammed also takes me to an application being CAN/1/2021 filed in the instant writ petition by the petitioners praying for appropriate order and refers to annexure – ‘C’ at page 36 of the said application being the recruitment advertisement in SAIL-ISP, Burnpur dated 15th November, 2018. In the said advertisement, vacancy to the post of Attendant-cum-Technician (Trainee) was declared with eligibility criteria in respect of upper age limit stated to be 28 years. Therefore, according to the learned Advocate for the petitioners, the petitioners were entitled to be considered for employment in the vacant posts of Attendant-cum-Technician. 18. Having heard the learned Counsels for the petitioner and the respondents and on careful perusal of the entire materials on record this Court, at the outset is inclined to record that there is no scheme for offering job to the land losers whose lands was acquisitioned by the State Government. In the instant case, previously IISCO sent some names to the State Government for their consideration and report as to whether they were either the real land losers or the relatives of the land losers with a proposal to give training and job. The State Government approved the names of 178 candidates who were imparted training by IISCO before their employment. The case of the petitioners is that they belong to the same class to which employment was offered and they are also entitled to get job in IISCO in addition to compensation for acquisition of land. It is not in dispute that the offer of employment to one member of every dispossessed family in the project stood withdrawn with effect from 3rd February, 1986. In Deby Lal Mahato (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court while setting aside the judgment and order dated 3/10.1.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and dismissed the contempt proceeding pending before it. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to allow a bail with a direction that the 970 persons whose name appear in category-2 as per the direction of the High Court (dated 7.4.1998) shall be considered and given preference for employment, other things being equal. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to allow a bail with a direction that the 970 persons whose name appear in category-2 as per the direction of the High Court (dated 7.4.1998) shall be considered and given preference for employment, other things being equal. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the above direction for consideration of the case of 970 applicants for employment on the ground stated in paragraph 7 of the said judgment wherein on facts the Hon’ble Supreme Court found:- “Then on 1.6.2007, the appellant advertised for 300 general vacancies in the company and the same were filled up after due selection process and the 26 persons who moved for contempt were also selected in the said process, other things being equal.” Thus, out of 970 candidates who were directed to be considered for employment, 26 candidates were given appointment on the basis of the selection process being conducted by the Steel Authority of India Limited. 20. In the instant case, it is rightly pointed out by Mr. Gupta, Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondent No.5 and 6 that the petitioners did not even appear in the selection process which was held on the basis of recruitment advertisement dated 15th November, 2018. Unless they take part in the selection process on fulfillment of necessary eligibility criteria, the respondent No.5 and 6 have no obligation to offer them employment. 21. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on contest, however, under the facts and circumstances, without cost. 22. It is however, made clear that if the petitioners take part in recruitment process conducted by the SAIL-ISP at Burnpur in future, the respondent No.5 and 6 shall give preference to them for employment, other things being equal.