JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application was initially preferred by the petitioners praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to provide employment/appointment to the petitioner No.2 in lieu of one acre of agricultural land used and utilized by the respondents for excavating coal in the year 1982 for which registered Sale Deed was also executed in favour of the respondents in the year, 1985.

Subsequently, an interlocutory application being I.A. No.1616 of 2012 was preferred challenging the order of rejection dated 12/13.01.2000 (Annexure A to the counter affidavit) which came to the knowledge of the petitioners during pendency of this application; whereby the claim of the petitioner No.2 for employment has been rejected. The said I.A. was allowed vide order dated 11.09.2012.

3. Brief facts of the case as narrated in this application is that one acre of agricultural land of petitioner No.1 in Mauza-Kapasara, Mauza no.63 under Khata No. 45 & 50 under Nirsa Police Station, District-Dhanbad was used and utilized by the respondent company for excavation in the year, 1982 for which deed of registration was also executed in their favour in 1985. According to the policy, the respondent coal company was to provide one employment in lieu of 1 acre of land. The petitioner no.1 duly applied for his appointment in lieu of 1 acre of land which was also approved by the functional Directors of the Company in its meeting. However, the same was denied subsequently in view of the fact that petitioner No.1 crossed age of 36 years, as such petitioner No.1 made representation before the competent authority requesting therein that his son (Petitioner No.2) should be considered for employment. However, the claim of the petitioners for employment of petitioner No.2 in lieu of 1 acre of land has been rejected vide order dated 12/13.01.2000 on the ground that the earlier policy of 1:1 ratio has been changed in 2:1 ratio.

In other words, earlier one employment was to be provided in lieu of one acre of land; however, the same was changed pursuant to the scheme dated 01.01.1985 to the extent that one employment shall be provided to one land looser in lieu of two acres of land.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though as per the new scheme one employment was to be provided in lieu of two acres of land; however, before coming to the amended scheme the respondents have taken over the land of the petitioner No.1, as such the denial of giving employment and taking recourse to the new scheme is inconsistent and not tenable in law. The further grievance of the petitioners is that several similarly situated land losers have been granted employment in lieu of 1 acre of land.

5. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that admittedly; 1 acre of agricultural land of petitioner No.1 was used, utilized and coal were excavated from the same by respondent company since the year, 1982 and thereafter the land was also registered in their name. He contended that as per the existing policy when the land was taken over by the respondent company; one employment was to be provided to one member of the displaced family in lieu of 1 acre of land.

He further submits that in view of the earlier scheme the name of petitioner No.1 was also considered and finally the Board of Functional Directors, which is the Apex Body, approved the case for providing employment to the petitioner No.1 on 02.02.1995 (Annexure-1) on the recommendation made by the General Manager. However, though the name of petitioner No.1 was approved, but the same was denied subsequently in view of the fact that petitioner No.1 crossed age of 36 years, as such the petitioner No.1 made representation before the competent authority of the respondent company stating therein that since petitioner No.1 is over age, the name of his son (Petitioner No.2) should be considered for employment, but, in spite of the fact that several other