The Court directed the respondent authorities to decide the petitioner's application for employment in lieu of acquired land within a stipulated period of 45 days, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

(Cause title, as taken from CIS system)

Order on Board

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. The present petition has been preferred by petitioner under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority i.e. respondent no.1 to 3 to grant employment to the petitioner in lieu of land acquired by them (as mentioned above).

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to 3 to decide the claim of the petitioner for grant of employment in lieu of land acquired by them within stipulated time.

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent company/ SECL to consider the case of petitioner as per the rehabilitation policy of the State and grant the employment.

10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

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

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land belonging to Faguwa, son of Rupu and grandfather of the petitioner, was acquired by South Eastern Coalfields Limited (for short “SECL”) in the year 1983. Thereafter, petitioner’s father, Ramayan Lal Kewart, filed an application in the year 2005 before the respondent authorities of SECL, nominating the petitioner for employment; however, no action was taken by the SECL authorities despite repeated requests. He further submits that in the year 2016, a joint camp (shivir) was conducted by the State authorities and SECL authorities, in which the petitioner’s father submitted the necessary form (Annexure P-4), despite that, no employment was provided to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s father again filed an application (Annexure P-1) along with all necessary documents; however, neither has the said application been decided by the respondent -SECL authorities nor has employment been provided to the petitioner. Hence, learned counsel prays that, the present writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.2 & 3 to decide the application (Annexure -P/1) filed by petitioner for employment, within a stipulated period.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. Having considered the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, instead of keeping the present petition pending, the same is disposed of at this stage directing Respondent Nos.2 & 3 to decide the application (Annexure-P/1) filed by the petitioner for employment as early as possible, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt/submission of a copy of this order. However, liberty is also left with the petitioner to file a fresh application within one week along with all necessary documents, enclosing a copy of application (Annexure P-1), the attached documents, and a copy of this order.

7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

8. With aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of

9. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s).