Hasmat Jahan vs Central Coalfields Ltd.

Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Out of the 7 prayers made in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to press the last 3 prayers only, which are quoted herein below:-

"1. i) to iv).......

v) For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction commanding upon respondents as not to provide employment without proper and detail enquiry of family member of Late Malik Sanaullah as petitioner having reasonable apprehension that some fake persons are trying to get employment by way claiming the family members of land loser namely Late Malik Sanauallah i.e. petitioner''s deceased father.

vi) For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction commanding upon respondents to provide employment to the petitioner as she is one of the legal heirs of land loser namely late Malik Sanaullah, if she is found entitle under the Land acquisition scheme of the respondents.

vii) For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction commanding upon respondents to release all consequential benefits during intervening period under which petitioner is entitled for appointment as family member of land loser under the respondents service scheme for the land loser against his land acquisition".

Averments made in the writ petition are lacking in material particulars of the acquisition in respect of which petitioner also claims to be land loser and entitled for appointment.

Averments made in the counter affidavit of the respondent- company show that an enquiry has been conducted through Committee constituted by the General Manager of the Rajrappa Area as several claims for appointment of land loser were being made on the basis of acquisition of land of one Late Malik Sanaullah of whom the petitioner is said to be the daughter. Petitioner has also represented before the Enquiry Officer refuting the claim of proposed 6 appointees that she had signed any compromise petition dated 23.2.2015 relinquishing her claim towards the property of her father. Respondents have in an unequivocal terms stated that proposed 6 appointees are adopting fraudulent and mischievous means by submitting forged documents to obtain the offer of appointment as per Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) Policy of the company. The counter affidavit concludes by stating that case of the petitioner is to be considered in accordance with the R & R Policy of the company and if she is otherwise entitled.

These relevant facts noticed herein above lead to the conclusion that the writ petition involves disputed question of facts and rival claims being made by the parties for appointment on the basis that they are land losers. Respondent- company has undertaken an enquiry and petitioner has also appeared before it. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction is not in a position to issue any specific direction one way or the other relating to inter-se claim of the petitioner vis-a-vis the other persons who are making such claims. These issues can be determined either by the competent authority of the respondent- Company on cogent facts and supporting documents or by an appropriate Forum where question of facts can be duly thrashed out.

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.