Back
2011 Supreme(Cal) 706
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta And Asim Kumar Ray, JJ.
Eastern Coalfields Limited
Versus
Sk.Nasiruddin and others
F.M.A. No. 1005 of 2010, M.A.T. No. 42 of 2010, W.P.No. 17823(W) of 2005
Decided on : 19.5.2011
For the Appellant: Mr. R.N.Majumdar, Mr. Susanta Paul, Mr. Partha Basu, Mr. Nikhil Ray
For the Respondent No. 1: Mr. Pijush Chaturbedi, Mr. T.K.Mukhopadhyay, Mr. A.K.Ghosal
The eligibility criteria for employment under a land acquisition and employment scheme must be interpreted and applied in accordance with the scheme's provisions applicable at the time of land acquisition.
Headnote:
LANDLOSER EMPLOYMENT SCHEME - EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED - LAND ACQUISITION AND EMPLOYMENT SCHEME - SCHEME PROVISIONS - ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR EMPLOYMENT - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Sk. Nasiruddin's father, Sk. Rabbani, and aunt, Golabjan Bibi, jointly owned land in Mouza Majiwara. Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL) acquired 1.15 acres of their land for coal extraction in 1972, rendering it unfit for cultivation. Rabbani applied for employment under ECL's Landloser Employment Scheme in 1991 but was found medically unfit. He requested ECL to consider his son, Nasiruddin, as his nominee for employment. ECL processed Nasiruddin's application but ultimately denied him employment based on a revised scheme requiring a minimum of two acres of land acquisition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that ECL's denial of employment to Nasiruddin was illegal. It found that the original scheme, applicable at the time of land acquisition, required only one acre of land for one employment and that Nasiruddin satisfied the eligibility criteria as a lineal descendant of the landloser. The court also noted that ECL had ignored the provisions of the original scheme and relied on a subsequent scheme that was not applicable to Nasiruddin's case.
Issues: 1. Whether Nasiruddin was eligible for employment under ECL's Landloser Employment Scheme as the nominee of his father, Sk. Rabbani. 2. Whether ECL's denial of employment to Nasiruddin based on a revised scheme was合法.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the provisions of the original Landloser Employment Scheme and found that Nasiruddin satisfied the eligibility criteria as a lineal descendant of the landloser and that the scheme required only one acre of land for one employment. 2. The court held that ECL's reliance on the revised scheme to deny employment to Nasiruddin was illegal as the revised scheme was not applicable to Nasiruddin's case, which fell under the original scheme.
Final Decision: The court allowed Nasiruddin's appeal and directed ECL to provide him employment under the Landloser Employment Scheme.
Asim Kumar Ray, J.
1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 21st October, 2009 passed in W.P. No. 17823(W) of 2005 by the Hon’ble First Court.
2. The brief background of the matter is that respondent /petitioner Sk. Nasiruddin’s father Sk. Rabbani since deceased and his aunt Golabjan Bibi were the joint owners of a land measuring 1.15 acres appertaining to Plot No. 3188 , Khatian No. 302 , J.L. No. 43 of mouza Majiwara, District-Burdwan. Appellant /respondent No. 4 Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as Company) started extracting coal from the said land from 9.8.1972 and as a result the land became unfit for cultivation. Whilst the land was in possession of the company on or about October 21, 1986 a deed of conveyance was executed by Rabbani and Golabjan Bibi and thereby the said land was transferred absolutely in favour of the appellant. Thus the two persons lost their land for cause of the appellant. A scheme was prepared for providing employment to the landlosers. There was provisions in the scheme that one employment was to be given to a land loser or his nominee if minimum of one acre land owned by him was purchased or acquired or used by the company during the period from 3rd September, 1975 to 12th August, 1983. Rabbani being eligible for employment in the company applied for employment in the year 1991. His appointment was approved by the competent authority by a letter dated January 15/17 of 1996. But in the pre-employment medical examination Rabbani was found unfit.
3. Thereafter Rabbani requested the company to consider his nominee Nasiruddin being the respondent herein for employment under the scheme. In response to the request the Personnel Manager , Sripur area issued a letter dated August 4/6 of 1998 asking the agent, Girimint (R) Colliery to forward necessary papers for sending them to the competent authority. On 18-6-1994 the appellant issued fresh norms for employment to the landlosers.
4. Since nothing tangible was forthcoming in spite of processing candidature of the respondent he moved this Court by filing writ petition being No. 12701(W) of 2003. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 1-9-2003 directing the Personnel Manager (IC) of the company to take decision with reason in the matter. In compliance with the said order the personnel manager passed order holding that the respondent’s prayer was not legally sustainable as the total quantum of land lost by the predecessor of the respondent does not cover 2.00 acres in terms of recent norms as above.
5. Being aggrieved by that reasoned decision Respondent herein filed writ petition being No. 17823(W) of 2005. The Hon’ble First Court has disposed of the writ petition by passing the impugned order.
6. Mr. Majumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ECL contended that the land originally belonged to Ijuddin, father of Rabbani. Rabbani preferred a claim for employment under the scheme as nominee of his father which did not materialize as he was medically unfit. The respondent, Nasiruddin is the nominee of Rabbani. The claim of Nasiruddin could not be considered as he was nominee’s nominee. He has further contended that the requirement of the scheme was that at least two acres of land owned by the landloser was purchased or acquired or taken for use by the appellant between 3-9-1975 and 12-8-1983. In the instant case only 1.5 acres of land was purchased and/or taken for use. That too was owned by Rabbani’s father. Therefore, the reasoned order passed by the Personnel Manager (IC) of the company does not suffer from any illegality. The Hon’ble trial Court without considering the norms now prevailing has passed impugned order.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf respondent/petitioner, Nasiruddin has contended highlighting the fact above that Rabbani applied for the employment in terms of the scheme. The appellant decided to employ him under the scheme unfortunately, he was fo
