As per case facts, petitioners' land in Village Pali was acquired by SECL for coal extraction after notifications under the Coal Bearing Act. They sought employment under the Model Rehabilitation ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
1
2026:CGHC:24192
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ORDER RESERVED ON : 07/05/2026
ORDER DELIVERED ON : 17/06/2026
WPS No. 4381 of 2019
Jyoti D/o Gorelal Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Pali, Post Padaniya, Tehsil
Katghora, Police Station And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba,
Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner.
Versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman Cum Managing
Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kasmunda Area
District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s).
With
WPS No. 4393 of 2019
Pawan Kumar Shukla S/o Parmeshwar Prasad Aged About 49 Years R/o
Village Pali, Post Office - Padaniya, Tehsil - Katghora, Police Station And
District Korba Chhattisarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner.
Versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing
Director- South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh
2 - General Manger South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area District
Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
With
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
2
WPS No. 4397 of 2019
Chhatram S/o Bed Ram Aged About 51 Years R/o Village- Pali, Post Office-
Padaniya, Tahsil- Katghora, Police Station And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner.
Versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman- Cum- Managing
Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area,
District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
With
WPS No. 4396 of 2019
Heeraman S/o Shri Awadhram Sahu Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Pali,
Post Office Padaniya, Tehsil Katghora, Police Station And District Korba
Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner.
Versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman Cum- Managing
Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - General Manger South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area,
District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
With
WPS No. 4391 of 2019
Chandrashekhar Shukla S/o Late Parmeshwar Prasad Shukla Aged About 43
Years R/o Village- Pali, Post Office- Padaniya, Tahsil- Katghora, Police Station
And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner.
Versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman- Cum- Managing
Director, South Eastern Coalfileds Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
3
2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area,
District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
With
WPS No. 4482 of 2019
1 - Rameshwar Prasad S/o Shri Awadhram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o
Village - Pali, Post Office - Padaniya, Tehsil - Katghora, Police Station And
District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
2 - Heeraman S/o Shri Awadhram Sahu Aged About 56 Years R/o Village -
Pali, Post Office - Padaniya, Tehsil - Katghora, Police Station And District
Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman Cum Managing
Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area,
District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
With
WPS No. 4514 of 2019
Smt. Pushpa D/o Gorelal Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Pali, Post-
Padaniya, Tehsil- Katghora, P.S. And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District :
Korba, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner.
Versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing
Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area,
District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---Respondent(s)
With
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
4
WPS No. 4683 of 2019
Shobhnath S/o Chhedilal Kewat Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Pali, Post
Office, Padaniya, Tehsil Katghora, Police Station And District Korba
Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner.
Versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum - Managaing
Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area,
District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
With
WPS No. 4693 of 2019
Neera Bai W/o Shri Gorelal Yadav Aged About 52 Years R/o Village - Pali, Post
Padaniya, Tehsil - Katghora, Police Station And District Korba Chhattisgarh.,
District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner.
Versus
1 - South Eastern Coal Fields Limited Through Chairman Cum Managing
Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area,
District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
With
WPS No. 4657 of 2019
Kashi Das S/o Sadasi Das Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Pali, Post Office -
Padaniya, Tehsil - Katghora, Police Station And District - Korba Chhattisgarh.,
District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner.
Versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Chairman - Cum - Managing
Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
5
2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area,
District - Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
With
WPS No. 4550 of 2019
Bhumendra Kumar S/o Gorelal Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Pali, Post
Office- Padaniya, Tehsil- Katghora, Police Station And District- Korba,
Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner.
Versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing
Director- South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh
2 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area,
District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
With
WPS No. 6033 of 2019
Babita Yadav D/o Pyarelal Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o Village - Pali, Post
Office - Padaniya, Tehsil - Katghora, Police Station And District - Korba
Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner.
Versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing
Director- South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh
2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area,
District - Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
With
WPS No. 6038 of 2019
Janrail Singh S/o Late. Harbansh Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o Qtr. No.
1082 Bajrang Chowk, Imli Duggu, Sitamani Korba, Ward No. 08, Korba,
District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
6
---Petitioner.
Versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman Cum Managing
Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area,
District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
With
WPS No. 6172 of 2019
Jaldhar S/o Ramayan Prasad Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Khamhariya
Basti, Vikas Nagar, Kusmunda, Tehsil Katghora, Police Station And District
Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner.
Versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Chairman Cum Managing
Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (CG).
2 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area,
District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
With
WPS No. 6306 of 2019
Santosh Kumar Devangan S/o Jeevan Lal Aged About 36 Years R/o Purani
Basti, Dewangan Mohalla, P.S. And Tehsil - Korba, District- Korba
Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner.
Versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing
Director- South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area,
District- Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
With
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
7
WPS No. 4551 of 2019
Neera Bai D/o Krishna Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Pali, Post-
Padaniya, Tehsil- Katghora, P.S. And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District :
Korba, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner.
Versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing
Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area,
District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
With
WPS No. 6322 of 2019
Bhushan Lal Yadav S/o - Bharat Lal Yadav Aged About 60 Years R/o - Village-
Pali, Post Office - Padaniya, Tehsil - Katghora, Police Station And District -
Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner.
Versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing
Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh
2 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area,
District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
With
WPS No. 6327 of 2019
1 - Purushottam Dewangan (Died Through Lrs)
1. Ramdev Dewangan S/o Late Shri Purushottam Dewangan, Aged About 55
Years, R/o 322, Durpa Road, Purani Basti, Ward No. 3, Korba Town, District
Korba, Chhattisgarh
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
8
2 - Rahul Dewangan S/o Ramdev Dewangan Aged About 23 Years R/o 322,
Durpa Road, Purani Basti, Ward No. 3, Korba Town, District Korba,
Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1-South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing
Director- South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh
2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area,
District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
With
WPS No. 6617 of 2019
Ajay Kumar Dewangan S/o Late Dukhi Ram Dewangan Aged About 38 Years
R/o Village Purani Basti, Dewanganpara, Korba, Tehsil Police Station And
District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner.
Versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing
Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area,
District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
With
WPS No. 6962 of 2019
Narendra Pal Singh S/o Harbansh Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o Q.No. 108,
Bajrang Chowk, Imli Duggu, Sitamni, Police Station And District - Korba,
Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner
Versus
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
9
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing
Director- South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh
2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area,
District - Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
With
WPS No. 3209 of 2021
Ramsajeevan, S/o Purshottam, Aged About 51 Years R/o Purani Basti,
Dewangan Mohalla, Police Station And District - Korba Chhattisgarh.,
District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner.
Versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing
Director- South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh
2 - Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area,
District - Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
3 - Staff Officer (L R), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area,
District - Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
With
WPS No. 6149 of 2019
Shyam Kumar S/o Ram Pyare Aged About 42 Years R/o Sarwa Mangla Road,
Patel Para, Korba, District - Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba,
Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner.
Versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited through Chairman cum Managing
Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area,
District - Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
With
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
10
WPS No. 4399 of 2019
Ram Kumar S/o Hulasram Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Pali, Post Office
Padaniya, Tehsil Katghora, Police Station And District Korba Chhattisgarh.,
District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner.
Versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman Cum- Managing
Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Raod, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kudmunda Area,
District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---Respondent(s)
(cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
For Petitioners:Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Respondents
/SECL
:Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai and Mr. Atul Kumar
Kesharwani, Advocates.
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi )
C.A.V. Order
1.Since all the above writ petitions involve common question of fact and law,
they are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and
clarity WPC No.4381/2019 will serve as the lead case, and its facts and
evidence shall be read as the primary basis for the adjudication of this batch
of matters.
2.By way of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the
impugned rejection order of representation (Annexure-P/1) of the
petitioners which were filed for grant of employment. Though they were
passed on different dates, however, they arise from a common factual matrix
and involve identical questions of law concerning the grant of employment
in South Eastern Coalfields Limited (henceforth the "SECL") in lieu of
acquisition of their land.
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
11
3.Before proceeding in the matter it will be apposite to mention the particulars
of land and case related details as per pleadings submitted by the petitioners
which are mentioned below:-
Sr
No
.
S.NO
.AS
PER
CAU
SE-
LIST
CASE NO. NAME OF
PETITIONER
LAND OWNER/
RELATION
/KHASRA NO. TOTAL AREA VILL
AGE
DATE OF
IMPUNGED
ORDER
1
3
WPS
4381/2019
JYOTI JYOTI / SELF 248/2- 0.07 ACRE
PALI29/12/2018
24 WPS
4391/2019
CHANDRAS
HEKHAR
SHUKLA
CHANDRASHEK
HAR SHUKLA /
SELF
154/2,401/5
,402/4
AREA-0.32
ACRE
PALI18/11/2018
35 WPS
4393/2019
PAWAN
KUMAR
SHUKLA
PAWAN KUMAR
SHUKLA / SELF
154/1,401/1 AREA-0.31
ACRE
PALI29/12/2018
46 WPS
4396/2019
HEERAMAN HEERAMAN /
SELF
KHATA
NO.781
215/2,216/1
,217/2
AREA-0.32
ACRE
PALI11/02/2019
57 WPS
4397/2019
CHHATRAM CHHATRAM /
SELF
405/1 AREA-0.20
ACRE
PALI11/02/2019
68 WPS
4399/2019
RAM
KUMAR
RAMKUMAR /
SELF
239/4 AREA -0.08
ACRE
PALI11/02/2019
79 WPS
4482/2019
RAMESHW
AR
PRASAD
RAMESHWAR
PRASAD / SELF
216/2 AREA-0.25
ACRE
PALI11/02/2019
810WPS
4514/2019
SMT.PUSHP
A
SMT.PUSHPA /
SELF
492/15 AREA-0.13
ACRE
PALI29/12/2018
911WPS
4550/2019
BHUMEND
RA KUMAR
BHUMENDRA
KUMAR / SELF
151/8 AREA 0.07
ACRE
PALI29/12/2018
1012WPS
4551/2019
NEERA BAI NEERA BAI /
SELF
239/5 AREA-0.04
ACRE
PALI29/12/2018
1113WPS
4657/2019
KASHI DAS KASHI DAS /
SELF
213/3 AREA -0.03
ACRE
PALI29/12/2018
1214WPS
4683/2019
SHOBHNAT
H
SHOBHNATH /
SELF
KHATA NO-
604 AND
635
(1) Khasra
No.
94/1,153/3,
156/3, 3/2
(2) AND 4/8
(1) AREA -
0.26 ACRE
(2) AREA-
0.03 ACRE
TOTAL -
0.29 ACRE
PALI11/02/2019
1315WPS
4693/2019
NEERA BAI NEERA BAI /
SELF
151/1 AREA-0.09
ACRE
PALI29/12/2018
1416WPS
6033/2019
BABITA
YADAV
BABITA YADAV /
SELF
211/9 AREA-0.08
ACRE
PALI11/02/2019
1517WPS
6038/2019
JANRAIL
SINGH
JANRAIL
SINGH /SELF
104/2,
413/11
AREA-0.15
ACRE
PALI29/12/2018
1618WPS
6149/2019
SHYAM
KUMAR
SHYAM
KUMAR /SELF
KHATA NO.
774
367/2
AREA-0.27
ACRE
PALI29/12/2018
1719WPS
6172/2019
JALDHAR JALDHAR /SELF 391/7 AREA- 0.40
ACRE
PALI29/12/2018
1820WPS
6306/2019
SANTOSH
KUMAR
DEVANGAN
SANTOSH
KUMAR
DEVANGAN
362/7 AREA 0.19
ACRE
PALI11/02/2019
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
12
/SELF
1921WPS
6322/2019
BHUSHAN
LAL YADAV
BHUSHAN LAL
YADAV /SELF
KHATA
NO.405
384/1
AREA- 027
ACRE
PALI11/01/2019
2022WPS
6327/2019
PURUSHOT
TAM
DEWANGA
N (DIED
THROUGH
LRS)
1. RAMDEV
DEWANGAN
2.RAHUL
DEWANGAN
PURSHOTTAM
DEWANGAN/
LRS
Khasra No.
198/1,
Area 0.15
Acre
PALI11/02/2019
2123WPS
6617/2019
AJAY
KUMAR
DEWANGA
N
AJAY KUMAR
DEWANGAN /
SELF
193/1,193/5 AREA 0.13
ACRE
PALI29/12/2018
2224WPS
6962/2019
NARENDRA
PAL SINGH
NARENDRA PAL
SINGH / SELF
104/1,
413/10
AREA 0.15
ACRE
PALI11/02/2019
2325WPS
3209/2021
RAMSAJEE
VAN
RAMSAJEEVAN /
SELF
198/2 AREA 0.14
ACRE
PALI26/11/2019
4.The facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners, are that they are the
owners of land bearing different Khasra numbers (as mentioned above),
with an area of less than 0.54 acres situated in Village Pali. The respondent
authorities issued a notification under Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (henceforth "Coal Bearing Act,
1957"), showing their intention to prospect for coal in the said area via a
notification dated 08.06.2009. Subsequently, the respondent authorities
issued a notification under Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Act, 1957,
regarding the acquisition of the land situated in Village Pali on 26.11.2009,
which also included the land of the petitioners. Ultimately, the proceedings
concluded following the acquisition of land via notification under Section 9
of the Coal Bearing Act, 1957, on 29.03.2010. As per the notification issued
by the respondent authorities, the entire land of Village Pali has been
acquired, including the land of the petitioners; however, the respondent
authorities have not considered their cases for employment in accordance
with the Model Rehabilitation Policy 2007 (Annexure-P/3) of the State. As a
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
13
result, the petitioners previously preferred writ petitions, which were
disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the
case of the petitioners in view of the order passed in the case of Ku. Rattho
Bai & Another Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited & others
1
. Respondent
No. 2, ignoring the law laid down in said case regarding the applicability of
the Rehabilitation Policy of the State, has passed the impugned orders
rejecting the respective representations of the petitioners by making the
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy 2012 of Coal India applicable. This
occurred whereas earlier, this Court had specifically held that the policy
issued by the State Government would prevail over the policy of S.E.C.L.
Hence, this petition.
5.Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners has made
following submissions:-
5.1)That this is the second round of litigation. In the earlier round of litigation,
this Court, in WPC No. 2432/2018 (Jyoti Vs. UOI & Ors) by order dated
04.09.2018, directed the respondents to decide the representation of the
petitioner with regard to the applicability of the rehabilitation policy. It
further directed them to decide the representation by a reasoned order
expressly dealing with the issue as to whether the order passed by this Court
in Ku. Rattho Bai & Another Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited & others
2
,
is applicable or not.
5.2)Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are
the owners of land situated in Village Pali. In compliance with the earlier
order passed by this Court, the petitioners filed a representation for the
1WPS No.432/2011 decided on 23.07.2015.
2WPS No.432/2011 decided on 23.07.2015.
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
14
grant of employment before the SECL, however, the same has been rejected
by the impugned order dated 29.12.2018 (Annexure-P/1). The order
applied the Coal India Limited Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2012
(henceforth the "Coal India Policy 2012"), whereas the SECL ought to have
decided the representation by applying the Chhattisgarh Model
Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 (henceforth the "State Policy 2007"). He further
submits that the law has been settled in this regard by this Court in the case
of Ku. Rattho Bai (Supra), holding that the State Policy 2007 shall prevail
over the policy of SECL. This law has been reiterated by this Court in
another case of Pyarelal Vs. SECL and others and other connected matters
3
and in recent order passed in Ishwarilal Sahu Vs. State of CG and others
4
.
He further submits that since the aforesaid orders/judgments passed by this
Court have never been challenged by the SECL before the Hon'ble Apex
Court, as such the aforesaid judgments have attained finality.
5.3)Learned counsel further submits that the similar was issue reached to the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of SECL Vs. Naresh Singh and others along
with other connected matters
5
(Annexure-P/9) arising out of final judgment
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The said
batch of cases were disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of
contention made by counsel appearing for SECL that they would follow the
policy set up by the State of Madhya Pradesh with regard to giving
employment to the persons whose lands have been acquired. It was also
contended by the counsel for SECL therein that even as per the policy laid
down in the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Ltd 2012
3WPC No.3076/2016 & connected matters delivered on 11.09.2017.
4WPC No.6013/2024 delivered on 27.01.2026.
5Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.2915/2009 and other connected matters deiced on 12/08/2014
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
15
(henceforth referred to as the “Coal India Policy 2012”), all the 899 persons
will be given employment.
5.4)Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners' entire land was acquired
after the final notification, and a policy cannot be applied retrospectively to
take away vested rights. Nowhere does the policy deprive a person of
employment when the acquired land is below a cut-off point, rather, only
the priority has been fixed, wherein the petitioners are entitled to relief,
having lost their entire land holding to the acquisition. He also submits that
under the State's rehabilitation scheme, any person whose entire means of
livelihood (land) is taken is entitled to employment. The respondents
rejected the claim on the ground that the land was below the cut-off point
i.e. 0.54 acre, which is illegal and arbitrary, as the State policy does not
prescribe any minimum land requirement when the entire land is acquired.
5.5)He would submit that this Court has already held that the policy of the State
Government carries statutory force and the same will be applicable as held
in the cases of Rattho Bai, Pyarelal, and Ishwari Lal, as mentioned above. All
these petitions represent a second round of litigation wherein, in the first
round, the Hon'ble Court had specifically directed the respondents to
consider the cases in light of the judgment passed in the case of Rattho Bai,
wherein the policy of the State Government was made applicable. In all the
petitions, the impugned order has been passed relying on the Coal India
Policy 2012, thereby denying employment on the grounds that the area of
land is below the cut-off point as determined by the respondents, which is
completely illegal and arbitrary.
5.6)Learned counsel next submits that the respondents, while on one hand are
denying the applicability of the Chhattisgarh Rehabilitation Policy 2007, on
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
16
the other hand, as per the pleadings, are relying on a DRRC meeting which
was constituted under the same Chhattisgarh Rehabilitation Policy 2007. He
also submits that the respondents contended that, as per the notification,
lands of five villages were acquired where the policy of Coal India was made
applicable, however, in those villages itself, the respondents have picked and
chosen the eligibility criteria. This is evident from the representation
preferred by the villagers of Jatraj (Annexure P-10), who have categorically
stated with names that in their village, some of the land oustees were given
employment as per the State Rehabilitation Policy. Further, the respondents
relied on the minutes of the meeting stating that the villagers agreed to the
application of the Coal India policy 2012, whereas in the minutes itself,
there was a specific objection by the villagers with regard to the applicability
of the above 2012 policy. The respondents have argued regarding the
ineligibility of the petitioners in terms of the Chhattisgarh Rehabilitation
Policy 2007, however, till date, they have not even verified the claims of the
petitioners in terms of the said policy.
5.7)In view of such submissions, learned counsel submits that the petitioners are
poor persons and their entire lands have been acquired by the respondents;
therefore, as per the State Policy 2007, all the petitioners are entitled to
employment. Therefore, the respondents may be directed to provide
employment to the petitioners.
6.In reply, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai and Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, learned
counsel for respondents/SECL vehemently opposed the submission made by
the petitioners and referring to their reply made following submissions:-
6.1)After the preliminary notifications issued by the Central Government under
Section 9 of the Act of 1957 on 29.03.2010, the petitioners' lands were
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
17
acquired. Thereafter, in terms of Section 11 of the Act of 1957, the lands of
the petitioners were handed over by the Central Government to the SECL in
the year 2010. Learned counsel, referring to Clause 11.2.6 of the State Policy
2007, submits that since the mining of coal and iron ore is done mostly by
undertakings of the Government of India, the Government of India is
required to issue an order to public sector mining companies regarding
compliance with the rehabilitation policy of the State and, if necessary, ask
them to make the necessary amendments in the Central Law. The said
provision specifically says that the State Policy 2007, in general, could not be
made applicable to coal mine projects undertaken by the Government of
India, i.e., SECL. Hence, in the absence of any notification or direction issued
by the Central Government, the petitioners cannot take the benefit of the
State Policy.
6.2)Learned counsel further submits that even if it is assumed that the State
Policy 2007 is applicable to the case of the petitioners, the petitioners still do
not fulfill the conditions mentioned in Para 7 or its sub-clauses, which deal
with employment and other facilities. Further, employment is not a
compulsory right of the land oustees; rather, Clause 7.1(f) provides for
employment on a priority basis. The petitioners have also not filed any
documents to demonstrate the priority under which their case falls regarding
Clause 7.1 (f) & (g).
6.3) Learned counsel, further referring to Clause 10 of the State Policy 2007,
submits that the policy itself says that in each acquisition of land for a public
undertaking, a separate rehabilitation scheme shall be created; however, no
separate scheme for rehabilitation has been created for the land oustees of
Village Pali.
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
18
6.4)Learned counsel further refers to the minutes/resolution of the meeting
dated 28.03.2016 (Annexure-R/1) held under the District Level
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Committee with regard to land acquired for
the Kusmunda Extension Project. He submits that the minutes/resolution of
the said meeting was agreed upon by the officers of the State Government,
SECL, and the Sarpanchs of various Gram Panchayats, including the
Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Pali, stating that eligible land oustees will be
provided compensation and employment as per the Coal India Policy 2012
issued by Coal India Limited. The said resolution has neither been challenged
by the petitioners nor any objection has been raised by them. Therefore, in
view of such a resolution agreed upon by the authorities and members of the
Village Panchayat(s), the representations of the petitioners were rightly
rejected.
6.5)Learned counsel further submits that the Coal India Policy 2012 has been
framed and passed based on the deliberations of the Inter-ministerial
Committee set up vide Office Memorandum No. 490191/2011-PRIW-1, dated
01/07/2011 of the Ministry of Coal; and while framing the Policy of 2012,
the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy 2007 and the Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy 2012 have also been kept
in mind.
6.6)Learned counsel next submits that for the Kusmunda Extension Project,
lands of total five villages have been acquired and the total land oustees of
said villages were about 2,570, out of which 801 persons have been provided
employment in descending order of the total area. Since the acquired lands
of the petitioners were not found within the cut-off area i.e. 0.54 acre up to
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
19
which employment has to be provided, hence in view of the resolution
Annexure-R/1 and R/2, the petitioners are not entitled to get employment.
6.7) It is also submitted by counsel for the SECL that the total sanctioned
manpower for the Kusmunda Project Extension is 1,975 and at present, about
2,453 persons are working in relation to said project; therefore, there is no
vacancy to provide employment to the petitioners.
6.8)Counsel further submits that the judgments and orders relied upon by the
petitioners in the cases of Rattho Bai (Supra), Pyarelal (Supra), Ishwarilal
Sahu (Supra) rendered by this Court and Naresh Singh and Others (Supra)
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were related to different projects and
different schemes, and their facts are distinguishable; therefore, they are not
helpful to the petitioners in the instant case(s).
6.9)Lastly, to buttress their submissions, learned counsel for the SECL placed
reliance on the cases of SECL Vs. Prem Kumar Sharma
6
, Punjab State
Electricity Board Vs. Malkiat Singh
7
, Staya Dev Bhagaur Vs. State of
Rajasthan
8
, Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State of MP
9
and Mahanadi
Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Mathias Oram
10
to submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
upheld the criteria of holding minimum 3 acres non-irrigated land or 2 acres
irrigated land to be valid and also submit that employment in lieu of land
acquisition is of nature of concession and cannot be claimed as a matter of
right.
6.10) In view of such submission, learned counsel for respondents/SECL submit
that the respondents/Authorities have not committed any error in rejecting
6AIR 2006 SC 2727
7AIR 2004 SC 5061
8AIR ONLINE 2022 SC 168
9AIR 2011 SC 1989
10(2023) 16 SCC 11
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
20
the representations of the petitioners and they are not entitled for
employment and prayed to reject all the writ petitions.
7.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record(s) carefully.
8.Undisputedly, the petitioners are land oustees of Village Pali, and their lands,
as has been mentioned in paragraph 3, have been acquired by
respondents/SECL for coal extraction. It has further been stated in the reply
filed by respondents/SECL that compensation for the said acquisition to be
paid to the petitioners has already been assessed; however, the petitioners
have not received the same as they are also seeking employment.
9.This is the second round of litigation initiated by the petitioners. Earlier,
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2432/2018 (filed by petitioner Jyoti in WPS
No.4381/2019) was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
observing therein in paragraph 5 & 6 as under :-
“5. For other relief in respect of applicability of
rehabilitation policy and grant of employment under the
said policy to a member of the petitioner's family or her
dependents, the petitioner may move fresh representation
before the respondent/SECL within a period of one month,
who in turn, shall decide the same, in accordance with law
within a period of 3 months thereafter. The representation
shall be decided by a reasoned order expressly dealing with
the issue as to whether the order passed by this Court in Ku.
Rattho Bai (referred to above) is applicable or not.
6. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above stated
terms.”
10.In compliance with the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the petitioner
submitted a fresh representation seeking employment which was rejected by
the respondents/SECL vide Annexure-P/1 on the ground that : “Ku. Rattho
Bai was found eligible for employment pursuant to the order passed by the
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
21
High Court in respect of Articles 14, 15 & 21 of the Constitution of India.
Her eligibility was determined on the basis of the ‘Clubbing Concept’ under
the Coal India Limited (CIL) Policy, 2008. However, in your case, (i.e. case of
the petitioner), the area of acquired land measuring 0.07 acres is less than
the prescribed area of 0.54 acres, as approved by the District Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Committee under the list of decreasing areas for
employment in Village Pali (CIL R/R Policy, 2012). Hence, you are not
eligible for employment. Therefore, your case is different from that of Ku.
Rattho Bai, as you do not fulfill the eligibility criteria for employment under
the applicable Rules..…….."
11.Learned counsel for the respondents/SECL vehemently argued that the CIL
Policy, 2012 has been framed after due approval of the recommendations
made by the Central Government Ministerial Committee constituted by the
Government of India. It was further contended that the provisions of the
National Rehabilitation and the Resettlement Policy, 2007 and the Land
Acquisition (Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Bill, 2011 have also been
considered while formulating the CIL Policy, 2012. He further contended
that, in the meeting of the District Level Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Committee (for short the “DRRC”), the Committee headed by the Collector,
comprising officers of respondents/SECL as well as representatives of
various Gram Panchayats, resolved that the CIL Policy, 2012 was more
beneficial to the land oustees. Accordingly, it was decided that matters
relating to employment and compensation would be governed by the CIL
Policy, 2012. In the said meeting, it was also resolved that employment
would be provided on the basis of decreasing order of the list, with the cut
off area prescribed as 0.54 acres. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
22
to get employment as the area of their acquired land is less than the
prescribed cut-off area of 0.54 acres.
12.In the case of Ku. Rattho Bai (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
has categorically held that, to consider the eligibility of land oustees to
provide employment, the State Government Rehabilitation Policy would
prevail upon the Policy of CIL. Relevant paragraphs 6 and 7 are reproduced
as under :-
“6. The Rehabilitation Policy of the erstwhile State of
Madhya Pradesh issued on 25.09.1991 (Annexure P/2)
provides in para (3) (ga) that such families whose entire
agricultural land and/or residential land has been acquired,
one candidate of such family shall be entitled for
employment as third preference category. Thus, the said
provision in the Policy nowhere mentions that for seeking
employment, a minimum 2 acres of land has to be acquired
from the family.
7. The policy issued by the SECL in the year 2002 makes
such provision, however, a reading of the Policy would
indicate that the said policy does not have any statutory
force, whereas, the Rehabilitation Policy issued by the State
of Madhya Pradesh has been issued for and on behalf of the
Governor of Madhya Pradesh. Since there is no legislation
covering the said field, the Policy has statutory backing in
terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the
Rehabilitation Policy issued by the State Government would
prevail upon the Policy of the SECL.”
13.The aforesaid view taken by the learned single Bench has consistently been
followed by this Court in a series of cases, namely, Pyarelal Vs. SECL and
others (WPC No.3076 of 2016 and other connected cases); Ishwarilal Sahu
Vs. State of CG and others (WPC No.6013 of 2024 and other connected
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
23
cases); and Udal Ram Vs. SECL and Others (WPS No.1545 of 2018 and
other connected cases) which has also been upheld by learned Division
Bench in South Eastern Coalfields Limited and Others Vs. Udal Ram (WA
No.424 of 2025 and other connected matters). Therefore, the contention
raised by learned counsel for the respondents/SECL that the issue of
providing employment to the petitioners should be considered as per the CIL
Policy, 2012 instead of State Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 is
not found to be sustainable at all.
14.A similar issue arising from the State of MP came up for consideration
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of South Eastern Coalfields
Limited Vs. Naresh Singh and others {SLP (C) No.2915/2009 and other
connected matters}. The said cases were disposed of by the Hon’ble Apex
Court vide order dated 12.08.2014 in light of the submissions made by
learned counsel for petitioners/SECL that they would follow the policy set
up by the State of Madhya Pradesh with regard to giving employment to the
persons whose lands have been acquired. In addition thereto, it has further
been submitted by him that even as per the policy laid down in the
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012, all the
899 persons will be given employment. The issue of cases in hand is also
pertaining to grant of employment, therefore, the respondents cannot be
permitted to deviate from the aforesaid contention made by learned counsel
for SECL before the Hon’ble Apex Court.
15.Clause 7 of the State Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007, (english
version of the same was published in the Chhattisgarh Gazette on
15.05.2008), is reproduced hereinunder :-
“7. Employment and other facilities:- 7.1 Such displaced family
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
24
will be eligible for employment who has been land owner or
lease holder of acquired land undependably or jointly three year
prior to the date of publication of Notification under, section 4 of
land acquisition act.
An one member of such displaced family providing employment
shall be made agreement whose more than 75% of the land, is
acquired for commercial project and whose land is acquired for
industrial/mining project, one member of affected families will
be provided employment as per their eligibility and
appropriateness.
(a) At the time of providing employment at project work
displaced family will be given priority.
(b) The eligible educated young people shall be made
arrangement of training to provide them better employment in
project as per their educational qualification.
(c) In the project of Govt. Department/public under taking shall
be relaxed for 2 years in the appointment on grade III post.
(d) Displaced family in the project shall be made special
arrangement to provide necessary transiting to make availability
of beneficiary work to them.
(d) Training of Fishermen will be provided to flood affected area
If there is given opportunity of fishermen in the project then
society of affected people/fishermen will be preferred for tender
ship.
(e) The Priority of employment shall be given in following
order:-
(i) whose 100% of agricultural land and house is acquired.
(ii) Whose 100% of agricultural land is acquired.
(iii) Whose more than 75% of agricultural land is acquired.
(iv) Whose more than 50% of agricultural land is acquired.
(v) Whose more than 25% of agricultural land is acquired.
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
25
(vi) Other displaced family.
(G) If opportunity of regular employment in
Commercial/Industrial/Mining project and Allied work is less
than number of displaced families, then in that condition
following alternatives shall be provided for them :-
(1) One member of displaced family will be given a shop (as he
wants), in projects area adjacent to that or near block head office
or in the area of Nagar panchayat /Municipality. Company will
bear all the expenditure, In head office of the Jnpad panchyat
Nagar panchyat / Municipality area company will be allotted
land on the basis of sale rates by the collector. After constructing
shop company will be allotted them to the displaced.
(2) Such displaced family who have an alternative of self
employment in transport business whether it is related to the
carriage of product or raw material use in project or passenger
transport they will be given priority in transport constructs of
project by the institution and to serve the purpose transport
vehicle will be made available for them.
7.2 Those member of displaced families who are eligible for
getting employment in projects but do not possess any
necessary/ required technical qualification, then in that
condition they shall be made to train them as per their
educational qualification by concerned institution in case of big
projects and in other cases by govt. department / Institution
training will be arranged independably or by using available
training facilities of state govt., as case may be.
7.3 Project affected other people specially land less people will
be given training by the govt. dept. to develop new skills in them
and they shall be endeavored to provide them employment in
small project. Those persons will be provided work in such
project generated /created by the State Government.
7.4 Displaced families shall be endeavored made to give
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
26
privilege by marking them for self employment rooted plans
(development of dairy, poultry, fisheries, short college industry
etc.) to be executed by the state govt. and by making loan
arrangements for them from financial agencies.
7.5 Government projects like Irrigation projects, Road projects,
School projects or Hospital project is Public welfare projects.
After there is no opportunity of employment there so there is no
need to given employment to govt. projects displaced people but
they shall be made legitimate provision for giving priority in
employment in Government/Semi government Organization
establishment.
7.6 The self help groups working in project area will be taken
to join them to the activities /work in industries. To serve this
purpose steps will be taken for organizing workshop/training by
the concern Department /establishment.”
16.A bare perusal of the Chhattisgarh Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy,
2007 shows that it nowhere provides that a person whose land has been
acquired for any Industrial/Mining project, would be eligible for
employment only if he possesses any specific area of land. Rather, para 7(e)
of the State Policy, 2007 provides priority in employment to those families:
(i) whose 100% of agricultural land and house has been acquired; (ii)
whose 100% of agricultural land has been acquired; (iii) whose more than
75% of agricultural land is acquired; (iv) whose more than 50% agricultural
land is acquired; and (v) whose more than 25% of agricultural land is
acquired. And as per the case(s) projected/contended by the petitioners,
their entire agricultural lands have been acquired by the Respondents/SECL.
As such, their cases very much fall under the category 7(e)(ii) of the State
Policy 2007. Therefore, the objection raised by learned counsel for
respondents that, since the area of land acquired from the petitioners is less
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
27
than the prescribed cut-off area of 0.54 acres, as such, the petitioners are not
entitled to get employment, is not sustainable at all.
17.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs.
Union of India reported in (2000) 10 SCC 664, noticed that displacement of
people living on the proposed project sites and the areas to be submerged is
an important issue, therefore, their rehabilitation and resettlement plan
would be drafted properly so that it would improve the living standards of
displaced persons after displacement, and held in paragraph 241 as under: -
“241. Displacement of people living on the proposed project
sites and the areas to be submerged is an important issue. Most
of the hydrology projects are located in remote and inaccessible
areas, where local population is, like in the present case, either
illiterate or having marginal means of employment and the per
capita income of the families is low. It is a fact that people are
displaced by projects from their ancestral homes. Displacement
of these people would undoubtedly disconnect them from their
past, culture, custom and traditions, but then it becomes
necessary to harvest a river for the larger good……..Realising
the fact that displacement of these people would disconnect
them from their past, culture, custom and traditions, the
moment any village is earmarked for take over for dam or any
other developmental activity, the project implementing
authorities have to implement R&R programmes”
18.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of N.D. Jayal and another v. Union
of India and others reported in {(2004) 9 SCC 362} has observed that the
land oustees have a right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to
lead a decent life and earn livelihood in the rehabilitated locations, and
further held that rehabilitation of the land oustees is a logical corollary of
Article 21. Paragraph 60 of the judgment reads as follows: -
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
28
"60. Rehabilitation is not only about providing just food, clothes
or shelter. It is also about extending support to rebuild livelihood
by ensuring necessary amenities of life. Rehabilitation of the
oustees is a logical corollary of Article 21. The oustees should be
in a better position to lead a decent life and earn livelihood in the
rehabilitated locations. Thus observed this Court in Narmada
Bachao Andolan case (2000) 10 SCC 664). The overarching
projected benefits from the dam should not be counted as an alibi
to deprive the fundamental rights of oustees. They should be
rehabilitated as soon as they are uprooted. And none of them
should be allowed to wait for rehabilitation. Rehabilitation should
take place before six months of submergence. Such a time-limit
was fixed by this Court in B.D. Sharma v. Union of India 1992
Supp (3) SCC 93 and this was reiterated in Narmada. This prior
rehabilitation will create a sense of confidence among the oustees
and they will be in a better position to start their life by
acclimatizing themselves with the new environment."
19.Though employment in lieu of land acquisition is provided in nature of a
concession and cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but when the State
Government has framed a specific policy for the rehabilitation and
resettlement of land oustees, which also contains provisions of providing
employment to displaced persons, the respondents are duty-bound to
consider the cases of the petitioners in accordance with the applicable
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007. While dealing with the similar
issues, the said policy has consistently been followed/upheld by this Court in
a catena of judgments. Therefore, it is not supposed from respondents/SECL
to deprive petitioners from getting employment by applying their own policy
i.e. CIL Policy. Having considered the fact situation of instant case, as well as
the consistent view taken by this Court, the case laws relied upon by learned
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
29
counsel for respondents/SECL are of no assistance to him in the facts of the
instant case.
20.During the course of submission, learned counsel appearing for respondents
given much stress to the minutes of meeting (Annexure-R/1) held on
28.03.2016, wherein the DRRC resolved that the issues realting to
employment and compensation would be governed by the CIL Rehabilitation
Policy, 2012. However, learned counsel for respondents failed to disclose the
project cost of Kusmunda Extension Project of Coal India that the project
cost was less than Rs.100 crores. Whereas, from the facts brought by the
respondents/SECL, it appears that project cost of said Extension Area was
more than Rs.100 crores. Therefore, DRRC has no right to take any decision
or override or substitute the provisions contemplated under the State Policy,
2007. Hence, the petitioners cannot be deprived of getting benefit of
employment under the State Policy, 2007 merely on the basis of the
aforesaid decision taken by the DRRC. In that view of the matter, contention
of learned counsel for the respondents/SECL that Rattho Bai (Supra) was
found eligible for employment as per the ‘Clubbing Concept’ of the CIL
Policy 2008, but case of petitioner(s) of instant case is not found alike of
Rattho Bai (Supra), therefore, their representation(s) have rightly been
rejected, is also not found to be sustainable/defendable.
21.Right of the land losers to get employment as per the rehabilitation policy is
extremely important right and that has to be considered in accordance with
law and in accordance with the policy in force on the date of acquisition of
their land and subsequent change in policy will not take away their accrued
right, if any, that has accrued to them by acquisition of their lands. No valid
agreement or consent overrides the statutory policy, and any reliance on CIL
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
30
Policy, 2012, in preference to the State policy is legally untenable. Despite
specific observation made by this Court in earlier round of litigation to
consider the petitioners’ claim in accordance with law laid down in the case
of Ku. Rattho Bai (supra), respondents have unlawfully rejected the claim(s)
of petitioners.
22.Thus, the benefit of rehabilitation and employment to land oustee is logical
corollary of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and denial of employment
is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India as well as
Article 21.
23.Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the impugned order(s)
(Annexure-P/1) are quashed and the respondents/SECL are directed to re-
consider the case(s) of the petitioners to provide suitable employment to the
petitioners or family members nominated by land oustee depending upon
his/her educational qualification and other eligibility in any part of its
establishment. It is further observed that such consideration should be made
by respondents/SECL within 45 days from the date of production of a copy
of this order.
24.Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated herein-
above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).
25.Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Ajay/Rukhsar
WPS No.4381/2019 &
Other connected matters
Legal Notes
Add a Note....