Fekwa Koiri vs Steel Authority of India

Pramath Patnaik, J.

In the captioned writ application, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to forthwith complete the process of

appointment of the petitioners being displaced persons on compassionate ground as per the scheme of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro Steel Plant

and to issue appointment letter in favour of petitioners.

The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief is that the residential house including agricultural land were acquired by the State for

establishment of Bokaro Steel Plant, the Unit of Steel Authority of India Limited. Against such acquisition, the respondents framed a scheme to

provide job to such displaced persons, whose land and/or residential house were acquired for the purpose of establishment of Bokaro Steel Plant, in

which, category 1 is for such persons whose residential house as well as the agricultural land were acquired. The petitioners being displaced persons

enrolled themselves in employment exchange and the respondents, who were in the need of Khalasi prepared a panel in the year 1991 for appointment

on the said post vide notification dated 05.09.1991, in which, the name of the petitioners found place, but later on the respondents intimated that no

appointment is going to be made vide such notification. Aggrieved thereof, C.W.J.C No. 2459 of 1995 (R) was filed, which was allowed with direction

to appoint the persons whose name finds place in notification dated 05.09.1991. Against that, the SAIL preferred appeal by filing L.P.A. No. 161 of

1996(R), which was disposed of confirming the order passed by learned Single Judge with certain modification.

But, even after disposal of appeal, when the impuned order passed by Division Bench was not complied with, the writ petitioners filed contempt

petition being M.J.C No. 139 of 1999 (R), which was disposed of with consent of parties vide order dated 1. 08.2000 with specific and mandatory

direction including with a direction to comply with the order passed by the Court. In compliance thereto, respondent no. 3-the Director, Project land

and Rehabilitation issued general notice vide memo dated 07.08.2000 inviting applications from the displaced persons along with requisite information.

Pursuant thereto, the petitioner along with other candidates whose name were found place in the list prepared by the respondents were called for

interview and their names were included in the list prepared by respondents-SAIL, but the process of interview could not be completed as State

officials did not attend the interview on account of strike called by non-gazetted employees. It has further been averred that a list of 1063 persons,

who were residing in slag dump area and whose land and/or house were acquired by SAIL, was verified by D.P.L.R and after verification, 178

displaced persons out of the said list were given employment. Thereafter, a tripartite agreement was signed between the management, displaced and

the then Deputy Commissioner, and as per agreement some persons were given employment out of the same list but till date the petitioners have not

been given appointment in lieu of lands acquired by the respondents-SAIL.

Heard Mr. V.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents-SAIL.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that name of the petitioners have been found place in the list prepared by the management itself and

out of those list many displaced persons have been appointed but the petitioners have been left out in a most arbitrary manner. Learned counsel for the

petitioners further submitted that in the tripartite agreement signed on 05.01.2003, it has categorically been resolved that after providing employment to

remaining 156 persons out of list of 207 persons, 128 persons who belong to Category -1, in which the petitioner fall, shall be appointed but now the

respondents are stepping back from their own stand. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that other similarly situated persons have

been taken in employment as per the scheme and agreement between the parties but the petitioners in a most arbitrary and discriminatory manner

have been left in lurch as unemployed.

As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the minutes of the meeting held on 25th January, 1964, it has been recorded

that at least one member of the displaced family would be given employment under the project but it has also been recorded that utmost care would be

taken to see that only the number of persons required essentially for the economical and sufficient execution of project would be employed under the

Bokaro Steel Project. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that many aggrieved displaced persons, who could not get employment

knocked the doors of this Court, and in compliance of order passed by this Court and the agreement between the parties, large number of displaced

persons were given employment.

It has further been averred that in compliance of order dated 01.08.2000 passed in MJC No. 139 of 1999 (R) and order passed in L.P.A. No. 161 and

162 of 1996, list of 207 persons were identified by the Director, Project Land and Rehabilitation for appointment in Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro and as

of now the process of appointment has been finalized and the contempt case being Cont. Case (C) No. 624 of 2005 filed in the self-same matter has

been dropped vide order dated 24.01.2006. Thus, the list of Category -1, as identified earlier, has now frozen and no further enlargement of this

category is permissible. Referring to the decision rendered in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant vs. Jamuna Prasad

Mahto as reported in 2004(4) JCR 526 submitted that the Hon’ble Court held that “It is a prestigious plant of the country and repeated claim

for appointment based on compassion must now be deprecated thoroughly and completely.†Hence, further appointment to the displaced persons

category would be contrary to the direction and mandate of Hon’ble Court given in above-referred case.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the pleadings available on

record, this Court is not inclined to accede to the reliefs sought for by the petitioners for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements:

(i).The Bokaro Steel Plant was established for growth of steel industry of the nation long back more than four decades ago, for which major chunk of

land was acquired and the State under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and in lieu thereto, paid the amount of compensation to the displaced

persons. However, in view of the meeting held on 25th January, 1964 between the representative of Ministry of Steel, Mines & Heavy Industries,

Government of India and State of Bihar, it was agreed to offer employment to at least one member of the displaced family but keeping in mind the

number of persons required for the project. Pursuant thereto, large number of displaced persons were employed in the Plant over the years. However,

some aggrieved displaced persons come before this Court and on direction of this Court for consideration of their case, they were accommodated.

(ii).But, the claim of employment on account of being displaced persons did not stop even after lapse of four decades of acquisition of land and they

are still in litigating terms for getting employment in lieu of land which was acquired long back ago. At the relevant point of time, the purpose and

intent of giving employment was only to maintain their family and never was an intention to accommodate each and every displaced persons at the

economical and financial cost of the plant, which was meant for development of the nation. For the reasons, I am of considered view that such

matters ought to be given a quietus or decent burial.

(ii).Be that as it may be, for the self-same relief, the matter went up-to the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein the Hon’ble Court discussed each

aspect of the matter and in unequivocal term has enunciated that it is high time to put to an end to such matters. For better appreciation, the relevant

paragraphs of the decision rendered in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Daby Lal Mahto & Ors as reported in 2008 (3) JCR 152 (SC), is

quoted herein below:

“9.Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to subsequent Memorandum of the Government dated 3.2.1986 in which it was

clearly mentioned in sub-para (v) of para 4 as under:

“In the context of the urgent necessity of public sector enterprises operating at commercially viable levels and generating adequate internal

resources, over manning has to be guarded against, any understanding formal or informal in regard to offer of employment to one member of every

dispossessed family in the project will stand withdrawn.â€​

It is unfortunate that despite the scheme having been withdrawn way back in 1986, the same finds no mention in any of the litigation which has

arisen with regard to the project. If the decision to withdraw the scheme was already taken by the Government of India in 1986 then that should have

been brought to the notice of the Courts at appropriate time that whatever scheme that had to be implemented had in fact been already implemented

and henceforth no further employment would be given in terms of the scheme to such landless people whose lands had been acquired. Had this fact

been brought to the notice of the Courts by the parties perpahs things would have been different. But, unfortunately, this basic fact has not been lost

sight of and this has resulted in a large number of litigation and the present contempt petitions before the High Court are an outcome of this.

Be that as it may, it is now high time to put an end to the litigation. It is an admitted fact that the project was completed way back in 1966 and

even after more than 40 years of the completion of the project, people whose land was acquired for the purposes of the project are still litigating for

getting employment. This is not at all warranted. At the relevant time, the intention of the Government was to rehabilitate the landless people whose

lands had been acquired and to provide employment to one member of the displaced family so that they could maintain the family so displaced. It was

not at all the intention of the Government to distribute this kind of largesse on an indefinite basis. This is nothing but an abuse of the process of

Court.â€​

In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ application

being devoid of any merit is dismissed.

As a consequence of dismissal of the writ application, all the Interlocutory Applications on Board, being I.A. Nos. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126,

6127, 6128, 6129, 6130, 6131, 6132, 6133, 6134, 6135, 6136, 6137 and 6290 of 2018 stands disposed of.