Jharkhand High CourtAnil Gupta @ Anil Kumar vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (In Short M/S ... on 14 December, 2022Author:Anubha Rawat ChoudharyBench:Anubha Rawat ChoudharyIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n\n                                     W.P.(S) No. 376 of 2020\n\n                Anil Gupta @ Anil Kumar, Aged about 34 years, S/o Sri Sachita\n                Prasad Gupta @ Sachita Prasad, R/o Bhimkanali Block - 4, P.O. -\n                Khanudih, P.S. - Baghmara, District - Dhanbad\n                                                            ...    ...     Petitioner\n                                        Versus\n                1. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (in short M/s BCCL) through Chairman\n                   cum Managing Director, Koyla Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. - Saraidhela,\n                   District - Dhanbad\n                2. Chief General Manager (P&IR), Headquarter of M/s BCCL, Koyla\n                   Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. - Saraidhela, District - Dhanbad\n                3. Chief Manager, Estate, Headquarter of M/s BCCL, Koyla Bhawan,\n                   P.O. & P.S. - Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad\n                4. Estate Manager, Block - II Area of M/s BCCL, AT & P.O. -\n                   Nawagarh, P.S. - Madhuban, District - Dhanbad\n                5. General Manager, Block - II Area of M/s BCCL, at & P.O. -\n                   Nawagarh, P.S. - Madhuban, District - Dhanbad.\n                                                       ...      ...      Respondents\n                                        ---CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY---For the Petitioner      : Mr. Siddhartha Roy, Advocate\n                For the Respondents     : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate\n                                        : Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate\n                                        ---\n07/14.12.2022         Heard Mr. Siddhartha Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf\n                of the petitioner.2.     Heard Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of\n                the respondents.3.     This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:"(i) For an appropriate action against the respondent no.2 to 5 for\n                illegally withhold the leftover 20 employment out of 292 employment approved by\n                M/s BCCL in lieu of the acquisition of 22.97 Acres Land and 145 residential\n                house at village - Jairamdih Basti for Benedih Open Cast Project under Block -II Area since 2006, considering the fact that the respondents have already\n                provided 272 employment to the land / house - premises owners but they are\n                discriminating with leftover 20 employment of the land/house- premises owners.(ii) For provide forthwith employment to the petitioner which already\n                approved by M/s BCCL in lieu of acquisition of his land/residential house-\n                premises at Jairamdih Basti standing over on the Part Plot No.201, Area - 3\n                Decimal, Mouza - Jairamdih, P.S. - Baghmara, Khata No. - 3, District -\n                Dhanbad for Benedih Open Cast Project under Block - II Area vide Land\n                Acquisition Case No.43/1988."4.     Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land of\n                grandfather of the petitioner was acquired vide Land Acquisition Case\n                No.43 of 1988 and vide letter dated 25.04.1994, altogether five persons\n                were offered employment including his mother. He also submits that\n                pursuant to the said letter, his mother was medically examined along2with others. He also submits that in the year 1994 itself, others were\nprovided the employment, but his mother was left out.5.     The learned counsel submits that when no employment was\nprovided to his mother, she filed a representation dated 08.02.2006\nstating that instead of her, the employment be provided to the present\npetitioner.6.     Learned counsel has also submitted that there were series of\nnegotiation between the Management and the land losers for providing\nemployment and such negotiations continued till the year 2012 and the\nfather of the petitioner/mother of the petitioner and the petitioner have\nbeen representing for employment to the petitioner. The last\ncommunication which has been annexed in the present case is dated\n18.01.2017 (Annexure - 12) and when no decision was taken in favour\nof the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed on 03.02.2020.7.     Learned counsel submits that admittedly, the land was acquired,\nthe mother of the petitioner was offered employment. She was ultimately\nnot granted employment and when she asked the respondents to provide\nemployment to the petitioner, no decision has been taken so far and\naccordingly, the petitioner is entitled for a mandamus upon the\nrespondents to provide employment to the petitioner.8.     Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has\nvehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that at\nthe time of acquisition of land, the petitioner was only two years of age\nand the mother was offered employment as back as in the year 1994 and\nthereafter she kept complete silence for 12 years and filed her\nrepresentation on 08.02.2006 (Annexure - 7). She submits that mere\nfiling of representation does not give fresh cause of action and no\nemployment can be provided to the petitioner. She has also referred to\nthe judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No.703 of\n2018 decided on 20.01.2020 and has referred to page 9 of the aforesaid\njudgment to submit that on account of enormous delay and laches on the\npart of the petitioner/his mother, no relief for appointment be granted to\nthe petitioner.9.     Learned counsel has referred to para 19 of the counter-affidavit\nand submitted that question of seeking further employment by the\npetitioner did not arise in the instant case as six number of employments\nwas already provided to the representative of Sri krishna Prasad Gupta3and no employment was further due. She has also submitted that as per\nthe counter-affidavit, the petitioner was only 2 years of age at the time of\nacquisition of land and, therefore, he was not even eligible for being\nconsidered for employment. She has also submitted that even the father\nof the petitioner was in employment with the respondent-company.10.    In response, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a\ndetailed rejoinder to the counter-affidavit has been filed and the father of\nthe petitioner was in employment before nationalization. The learned\ncounsel has also submitted that providing of six employments as stated\nby the respondents in the counter-affidavit, has also been denied in the\nrejoinder.11.    After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering\nthe facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that admittedly\nat the time of acquisition of land, the petitioner was only two years of\nage and it appears that the mother of the petitioner was offered\nemployment as back as in the year 1994, but as per the petitioner, she\nwas not provided any employment. However, she kept complete silence\nand after 12 years, in the year 2006, she filed representation before the\nrespondents stating that her son should be given the employment in her\nplace. It further appears that the petitioner / his mother/ his father has\nbeen filing representation before one or the other authority and have filed\nthis writ petition only on 03.02.2020. The fact remains that the petitioner\nwas only two years of age at the time of acquisition of land and this\nCourt in L.P.A No.703 of 2018 decided on 20.01.2020 has clearly held in\npage 9 as follows:"..................This Court, therefore, is of the view that when in\n             the matter of compensation delay of 21 years has not been\n             condoned by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the question of providing\n             appointment on the ground of acquisition of land to the dependents\n             of the displaced raiyat will have to be considered in high pedestal\n             in comparison to that of the compensation as because the\n             appointment, if provided, to the dependents of the displaced raiyat,\n             the same will be by virtue of compassion and it has been settled\n             that the appointment either by virtue of compensation in lieu of\n             acquisition of land or the appointment on compassionate ground\n             due to death of the bread earner, thus the same are contrary to the\n             principle laid down underArticle 14and16of the Constitution of\n             India and the same is to be treated as an exception. Here, in the\n             present case also, the claim is being made after 27 years from the\n             date of acquisition. At the time of acquisition of initiation of\n             proceeding for acquisition, the petitioners were minor as has been\n             discussed at paragraph 10 and 11 hereinabove. However, at the\n             risk of repetition the same is reiterated herein that when the land\n             was acquired and a proceeding was initiated in the year 1990, the\n             age of the appellant Nos.1, 2 and 3 was 05 years, 13 years and 084years respectively and so far as the appellant No. 4 is concerned,\n                       he was not even born at that time."12.    It has been held that the appointment, if provided, to the\n          dependents of the displaced raiyat, the same will be by virtue of\n          compassion and it has been settled that the appointment either by virtue\n          of compensation in lieu of acquisition of land or the appointment on\n          compassionate ground due to death of the bread earner, thus the same are\n          contrary to the principle laid down underArticle 14and16of the\n          Constitution of India and the same is to be treated as an exception. In the\n          said case, the claim was made after 27 years from the date of acquisition\n          and considering the fact that the claimants were minor at the time of\n          acquisition of land and some of them were not even born, the claim for\n          appointment in lieu of acquisition of land was rejected.13.    This Court finds that the petitioner was only 2 years of age at the\n          time of acquisition of land and the mother of the petitioner did not take\n          any steps for redressal of her grievance, if any, at the relevant point of\n          time. She was offered employment as back as in the year 1994, but did\n          not take any steps and when the petitioner became major, she filed a\n          petition in the year 2006 petition seeking employment for her son - the\n          petitioner and the writ petition has been filed on 03.02.2020. This Court\n          is of the considered view that with the passage of time and upon attaining\n          majority, the petitioner does not acquire any right to employment, who\n          was admittedly just 2 years of age at the time of acquisition of land.\n          Otherwise also, the present writ petition suffers from enormous delay\n          and laches on the part of the petitioner. In the light of the aforesaid\n          judgement passed in L.P.A No.703 of 2018 decided on 20.01.2020 and\n          considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is not\n          entitled for any relief as prayed for in this writ petition, which is\n          accordingly dismissed.14.    Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)\nSaurav/