The central legal point established in the judgment is the eligibility of land losers for employment under the Rehabilitation Scheme and the importance of considering all relevant facts in such cases.

ORDER :

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the letter-cum-order dated 6.1.2014 (Annexure P/7) passed by Dy. General Manager(Personnel), SECL, Kusmunda Area, whereby the petitioner has been disqualified for getting employment in lieu of acquisition of his land.

2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is owner of land bearing Khasra No.22/7, P.H.No.35, area 0.040 acres situated at Village-Churakhachar which is registered in the name of his grand-mother. The said land was acquired by the South Eastern Coalfields Limited and as per CG Rehabilitation Scheme 1991 and its amendment dated 21.12.1995, the petitioner submitted his nomination form along with requisite documents before the respondent-SECL. The petitioner’s grand-mother also moved an application for correction of her land record before the Sub Divisional Officer on 3.1.2005. After due enquiry, respondent No.3/SDO (R), Katghora recommended the name of the petitioner for granting him employment in lieu of acquisition of his land. However, vide impugned order dated 6.1.2014 the Dy. General Manager (Personnel), SECL, Kusmunda Area rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that as per rules, the petitioner does not fall in the category of direct liner dependent of the deceased employee. Hence this petition for the following reliefs:

“10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent company to consider the case of the petitioner as per the rehabilitation policy of the State.

10.3 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to further direct the respondent company to provide employment to the petitioner in lieu of the acquired land of the petitioner.

10.4 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 06.01.2014 (Annexure P-7).

10.5 Any other relief, which may deem fit, in the interest of justice.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities is per se illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. The respondent/SECL acquired the land of the petitioner without granting him employment in contravention of the provisions of the Rehabilitation Scheme as the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991 and its amendment in the year 1995 specifically provide for employment of the land losers having title over the acquired land for more than 20 years. The petitioner had submitted all the requisite documents along with his nomination form before the respondent/SECL. The Collector in its enquiry report has specifically confirmed the title and ownership of the petitioner over the land acquired by the SECL and held him eligible for getting employment in lieu of acquisition of his land but the respondent authorities by the impugned order dated 6.1.2014 rejected the claim of the petitioner.

Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in the matters of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Prabhat Kumar Mishra, (2017) 2 CGLJ 193.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 to 6 strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the land bearing Khasra No.22/7, total area 0.10 acre, belongs to one Manohar, son of Shivprasad as per official records vide Annexure R 4-6/1. After the death of original land owner Manohar, the SDO (R), Katghora passed order No.257 dated 6.2.2006 declaring Ramotin Bai as legal heir of the original land owner vide Annexure R 4-6/2. Ramotin Bain nominated her legal son Ashok Kumar (petitioner), son of Mitthulal for employment and submitted his nomination and other documents vide Annexure R 4-6/3. The said nomination letter was sent to the Collector, Korba for verification and enquiry. After verification, the Collector send Memo dated 7.12.2006 (Annexure R 4-6/4). For deciding the case of employment, a committe