Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Mirabai Namdeo Gaurkar and her son Raju Namdeo Gaurkar, filed a writ petition challenging a communication dated 05-12-2020 from Western Coalfields Ltd. (WCL) which kept in abeyance their request for compensatory appointment for Raju Gaurkar under the rehabilitation policy, citing the pendency of Regular Civil Suit 172/2016 regarding title to the acquired land. The subject land, owned by Mirabai Gaurkar, was acquired by WCL under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, via notification dated 17-9-2011 under Section 9(1) of the Act for an Open Cast Mine Project. It was undisputed that under the rehabilitation policy, the land owner is entitled to employment subject to certain conditions. Initially, Mirabai sought employment for herself but was informed that due to her age it was not possible; she then sought employment for her son Raju, a Commerce Post Graduate. WCL refused to consider the request solely on the ground that a civil suit regarding title was pending. The court noted that the acquisition was completed and the land vested in WCL, and the pendency of a civil suit does not bar consideration of the claim for employment. The court directed WCL to consider the petitioners' claim for compensatory appointment within four weeks, without being influenced by the pendency of the civil suit, and disposed of the petition with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensatory Appointment - Rehabilitation Policy - Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 - The court considered whether the pendency of a civil suit regarding title to the acquired land justifies keeping the request for compensatory appointment in abeyance. The court held that the pendency of a civil suit does not bar the consideration of the claim for employment under the rehabilitation policy, as the acquisition was completed and the land vested in WCL. The court directed WCL to consider the petitioners' claim for compensatory appointment within four weeks, without being influenced by the pendency of the civil suit. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the pendency of a civil suit regarding title to the acquired land can be a valid ground to keep in abeyance the request for compensatory appointment under the rehabilitation policy.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the communication dated 05-12-2020, and directed WCL to consider the petitioners' claim for compensatory appointment within four weeks, without being influenced by the pendency of Regular Civil Suit 172/2016. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Compensatory appointment
- Rehabilitation policy
- Pending civil suit
- Land acquisition
- Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act
- 1957
- Section 9
