2019 Supreme(Cal) 515
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA SARKAR, J.
S.K. Amjad Maji - Appellant
Versus
Coal India Limited & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1279 of 2014
Decided On : 03-05-2019
Alok Banerjee, Sanchita Barman, Partha Ghosh, Subjojit Seal, Advocates
The court emphasized that the delay in employment approval was caused by the respondents, and the petitioner had the right to be granted employment if found physically fit and with no adverse police report.
Headnote:
Delay in Employment Approval - Land Loser Scheme - 8.9.75 to 12.8.83 - [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition against the delay and harassment caused by the respondent in providing employment under the land loser scheme. The petitioner's grandfather's land was used and purchased by the Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL) for mining operations. Despite approvals and police verification, the employment was delayed, and the petitioner sought employment as the nominee of the original land loser.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to employment under the land loser scheme as the grandson of the original land loser and son of the nominee. The court held that the delay in employment approval was caused by the respondents and the petitioner had the right to be granted employment if found physically fit and with no adverse police report.
Issues: Inordinate delay in employment approval, eligibility under the land loser scheme, interpretation of the scheme's clauses, and the respondents' conduct in processing and approving employment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to employment under the land loser scheme as the grandson of the original land loser and son of the nominee. The court also emphasized that the delay in employment approval was caused by the respondents, and the petitioner had the right to be granted employment if found physically fit and with no adverse police report.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondent to obtain the police verification report and send the petitioner for a medical test. If both reports were favorable, employment should be given to the petitioner within three months.
JUDGMENT :
1. This writ petition has been filed against the inordinate delay and harassment caused to the petitioner by the respondent in providing employment to the petitioner under the land loser scheme of the respondent in which, a provision had been made for providing employment to the land loser or nominee of the land loser if the lands were either used for extraction of coal and/or purchased or acquired by the coal industries for mining operations.
2. The case of the petitioner was that his grandfather, namely, Sk. Kubed Maji was the recorded owner of Dag Nos.1936, 1925 and 1927, mouza- Pariharpur, J.L No.23, Police Station-Jamuria, Sub-Registery office-Raniganj. The Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ECL) a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, purchased portions of the above plots of lands from Sk. Kubed Maji under different deeds, measuring about 1.05 acres. According to the petitioners, after the purchase of the land the competent authority of the ECL approved the employment in favour of his grandfather, Kubed Maji, since deceased, and the approval of the appointment was communicated to Kubed Maji by the office of the Dy.CME/Agent vide memorandum No.A/Gir/Survey/9/C-6/93/2005 dated August 16, 1993 but, the final appointment was not made. Subsequently, the approval for employment in favour of the father of the petitioner, Irsad Maji son of Kubed Maji was processed as a nominee of Kubed Maji, as would appear from a communication by the Director Personnel ECL to the General Secretary of CMU (INTUC), that is the union of the coal mine workers under memo No. ECL:HQ:D (P) 34/30. It appears from a letter dated February 22/23, 1995 written by the Area Manager (P.C & D) Sripur area of ECL that the officer-in-charge of Jamuria Police Station was asked by the authorities to certify whether any police case was pending against Sk. Irsad Maji, the father of the petitioner. By a communication dated December 11, 1995, the sub-inspector of police of Sripur area intimated to the officer-in-charge Jamuria Police Station that there was nothing adverse against the petitioner's father Irsad Maji. The police verification report was complete and favourable yet, employment was delayed by the respondents. Thereafter, Irsad Maji wrote a letter to the Chief Personnel Manager, Sripur area ECL through the agent Girmint (R) Colliary ECL, stating, inter alia, that although the employment was approved in his favour under the land losers scheme in 1995 but, due to some typographical errors in his name, the appointment was held up for a long time and finding no other alternative, Irsad Maji had nominated his son, that is, the petitioner, as the grandson of the original land loser late Kubed Maji, for employment under the land loser scheme in place of late Kubed Maji and Irsad Maji. He also informed the officer that all formalities had been completed and the forms and other compliances with regard to the employment had already been filled in and submitted by the petitiner. Irshad Maji requested the authority to give employment to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner himself made a representation before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, ECL, the General Manager, Sripur Area and the Director Personnel ECL, with a prayer to expedite the process of his appointment under the land loser category as per the scheme/policy framed in this regard. No decision was taken by the authorities. Hence, this writ petition was filed on December 23, 2014.
3. Mr. Partha Ghosh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted, that the grandfather of the petitioner was the original land loser, whose lands were both used and purchased by the ECL. He placed reliance on such averment made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents. He further submitted that there was no factual dispute with regard to the applicability