IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.
Mohit Kr. Maji & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
WPA No. 7591 of 2016 With CAN 1 of 2021
Decided On : 04-07-2023
EMPLOYMENT - LAND ACQUISITION - SCHEME FOR EMPLOYMENT OF LAND LOSERS - SCHEME WITHDRAWN - NO OBLIGATION ON THE EMPLOYER TO OFFER EMPLOYMENT - PETITIONERS DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN SELECTION PROCESS - NO RIGHT TO EMPLOYMENT - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, land losers or their relatives, sought employment in IISCO under the CSR initiatives of the company. IISCO had prepared a list of 178 candidates and sent it to the State Government for verification. After verification, IISCO arranged for their training and they were absorbed in IISCO. Petitioners contended that they were similarly placed and were entitled to similar treatment.
Finding of the Court:
The scheme for providing employment to land losers in addition to payment of compensation was abolished on 3rd February 1986. The Supreme Court in Deby Lal Mahato held that it was not the intention of the Government to distribute this kind of largesse on an indefinite basis, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to employment in IISCO despite the withdrawal of the scheme for employment of land losers?
Ratio Decidendi: The scheme for employment of land losers was withdrawn in 1986. The Supreme Court in Deby Lal Mahato held that it was not the intention of the Government to distribute this kind of largesse on an indefinite basis. The petitioners did not participate in the selection process conducted by IISCO. Hence, they are not entitled to employment.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed on contest, however, under the facts and circumstances, without cost.
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.
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. 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 respond
Withdrawal of scheme for employment of land losers bars their claim for employment.
Claims for employment related to land acquisition must comply with statutory provisions, and significant delays can bar such claims.
The entitlement to employment in land acquisition cases is based on the use of land, not formal acquisition, and must be fulfilled in accordance with the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy. Viola....
Railway land losers policy withdrawal held prospective; pre-existing applications recommended before withdrawal entitled to consideration under earlier scheme, not retrospectively denied.
The court established that employment entitlements under land acquisition policies must be honored as per the terms in effect at the time of acquisition, ensuring adherence to principles of natural j....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of land losers cannot be claimed as a matter of right and any government order providing employment to one member of a family ....
The withdrawal of a policy does not affect the entitlement of individuals for similar treatment under Article 14, especially when the policy was consistently applied and the individuals were similarl....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.