IMPORTANT POINT
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 justice.

JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.

Prelude:

1. An intricate and drawn-out legal wrangle over an issue of entitlement to an employment in Eastern Coalfields Limited in lieu of acquisition of land in terms of its Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy persists for decades in its quest of a definite resolution.

Petitioner’s case:

2. Way back in 1981-82, the Eastern Coalfields Limited (in short, ECL) decided to acquire a large chunk of land in the District of Burdwan for expansion of its coal-mining activities. Further to that objective, a L.A. case no. 36R of 1981-82 came to be initiated in terms of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act-II of 1948 (in short, the Act-II of 1948).

3. An area of 1.07 acres of land appurtenant to plot no. 962 at Mouza- Bazari, Plot No.135 at Mouza- Kumar Khola and Plots no. 64, 29 & 147 at Mouza – Haripur (hereinafter referred to as the lands) belonged to one Chaina Mondal and one Baidya Nath Ghosh were also acquired and used by ECL.

4. At the relevant point of time, to address the plight of the land-losers, a Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, which was operative till 31st December, 1984, was adopted and for implementation of such policy, a scheme was framed. Under the aforesaid policy/scheme, a specific promise was held out by the ECL to provide one employment in any suitable position against one acre of land (i.e. at 1:1 ratio) to a land loser or his/her nominee in addition to monetary compensation for the land.

5. The petitioner who happens to be the nephew and nominee of the afore-mentioned land-losers submitted a duly filled in prescribed form for his employment in any suitable post in ECL under land loser category.

6. Despite receipt of such application, the respondents maintained deceptive silence. The petitioner incessantly knocked at their door seeking employment, yet his efforts were in vain. In their innumerable inter-departmental communications and circulars, the respondents themselves acknowledged and/or admitted their liability to provide such employment under land loser category but defying their own circulars, the respondents did not offer any employment to the petitioner. Upon inquiry, the petitioner uncovered the truth that some candidates in similar circumstances were granted employment opportunities through discriminatory practice.

7. The General Manager, Pandeveswar area, ECL in a communication dated 12.03.1997 requested the concerned authority to provide employment to the deprived land losers at 1:1 ratio but to no avail.

8. To address the grievances of the land losers, the Hon’ble Minister of Coal, Government of India himself intervened in the matter and chaired a meeting with the Chief Managing Directors of the respective collieries on 4th July, 2006. In terms of the resolution adopted in the meeting, the Director (Personnel), ECL in his letter dated 16.08.2006 addressed to Director of Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India, detailed the particulars of the cases where the assurance given to the land losers had not been honoured. The case of petitioner no. 1 was identified as one of such cases.

9. Facts remain that several meetings were convened at different levels and numerous inter-departmental communications were exchanged but till date the issue remains unresolved. In various communications, the respondents themselves admitted the facts that despite giving assurance to land losers, employments have not been provided to them at 1:1 ratio in many cases. Even on 6th March, 2010, a committee was constituted to interact with the representative of land losers but all these measures ultimately failed to yield any result.

10. Sometimes in 2008, 60 (sixty) numbers of identically circumstanced candidates moved a writ petition being W.P. no. 848 of 2008, which was disposed of by an order dated 8th May, 2009 directing the concerned authorities to frame a scheme after proper interaction with the representative of the petitioners in W.P. no. 848 of 2008 for providing them emplo