The timely submission of claims for rehabilitation employment is crucial, and granting employment after a long period would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to forthwith provide employment to the petitioner in lieu of acquisition of his land situated at Plot Nos.228 and 218, Khata No.76 Mouza No.82 which stand recorded in the name of his grandfather Late Bhuwan Pandey (Bhuneshwar).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that entire Nadkhurkee Basti Part-II consisting of 50 houses and one school building was acquired by the respondent-Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) for which 75 employments were sanctioned out of which 48 employments have already been given and 27 employments are still pending to be given to the displaced raiyats. The petitioner/his father time and again represented the respondent-authorities for providing employment under the Land Looser Scheme of the respondent-BCCL, however, the said matter was kept pending. It is further submitted that respondent-authorities are not permitted to discriminate the petitioner as compared to other displaced persons in the matter of granting employment which is violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that respondent-authorities acquired 1.16 acres of land which belonged to the joint family property of the petitioner for which 46 employments were sanctioned, however, only 35 employments were given to other three co-sharers and thereby denied any employment to the family members of the petitioner, despite the fact that he is entitled to get his share proportionately in the sanctioned package of employment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the claim of the petitioner/his father was for 11 employments in lieu of acquisition of 1.16 acres of land along with a building for which 46 employments were already approved, out of which only 35 employments were granted to other three co-sharers of the joint family property, namely, heirs of Late Santosh Mani Pandey, Late Kedar Nath Pandey and Late Gokul Pandey. However, not a single employment has been given to the legal heirs of Late Bhuwan Pandey who was the grandfather of the petitioner. The said claim is also substantiated from the fact mentioned in the noting of the competent authority of the respondent-BCCL dated 14th March, 1997.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-BCCL submits that the land of Nadkhurkee Basti No.II was acquired at the instance of respondent-BCCL. Initially in the year 1997, a decision was taken to provide employment to the displaced persons and some of them were given employments. Subsequently, no further employment was given, as the same was found to be in deviation of R&R Policy of the respondent- BCCL and the said proposal was not in accordance with law. It is further submitted that petitioner is the resident of Plot No.602 and not the resident of Nadkhurkee village as claimed by him. The petitioner was encroacher upon the said plot having no title over the same which admittedly belonged to the respondent-BCCL. Previously, a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.6069 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner’s father, however, the same was dismissed by the Writ Court holding inter alia that the petitioner did not derive any right to continue with the unauthorized occupation over the public premises on the basis of purported agreement with the respondent-BCCL and that there was no bona fide dispute/ complicated question of title involved in the case. Aggrieved with the said order of the learned Writ Court, the petitioner’s father preferred L.P.A. No.195 of 2008 which was heard by learned Division Bench of this Court along with L.P.A. No.196 of 2008 filed by one Madan Pandey and vide common order dated 17th August, 2015, one employment was directed to be provided to the representatives of the said appellants on the condition that the land in dispute was to be vacated by them within one month, so that the same would be u