AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amareshwar Sahay, J.—Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani learned counsel for the petitioner.
Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents, though on 12.3.2004 an undertaking was given by the learned counsel for the respondents to file vakalatnama and also the counter affidavit, within a period of four weeks. But neither counter affidavit has been filed nor anybody has appeared today on behalf of the respondents. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is being disposed of on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition.
The grievance of the petitioner is that though the land of the petitioner was acquired for Bokaro Steel Limited but as per the scheme framed by the concerned respondents the petitioner has not been provided employment in Bokaro Steel" Plant.
In similar matter, which came before this Court in CWJC No. 2329 of 2001, Ranjit Malik v. Bokaro Steel Plant and others and CWJC No. 1571 of 2001, Gitu v. Bokaro Steel Plant and others, this Court directed the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners therein in the light of the scheme framed by the management, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months.
In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation stating in detail about his claim with all supporting documents to the Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant, B.S. City, Bokaro within a period of three weeks from today. If such representation is filed by the petitioner within the specified time, the Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant, B.S. City, Bokaro shall decide the claim of the petitioner and pass a s disposed of.