Jayanta Kumar Pradhan vs Mahanadi Coal Field Ltd. & Ors

Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

The Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, has challenged the proceeding of the Sub-Committee meeting of MCL held on 02.08.2013 at DRDA Conference Hall, Angul, show-cause notice dated 19.04.2016 issued by the General Manager, CWS(X), Talcher, MCL and the Termination order dated 07.05.2016 issued by the General Manager, CWS(X), Talcher.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

Facts culminating in filing of the present Writ Petition are that:

(i) The Petitioner’s maternal grandfather was the land-oustee of the village, Balugaon Khamar, Gongutia and Balugaon. The said land has been acquired by the Mahanadi Coal Field Ltd. for the purpose of Lingaraj Open Cast Project. Therefore, the Petitioner’s maternal grandfather submitted an application for the employment of the Petitioner under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement scheme.

(ii) As per the policy, one of the family members of the land-oustee is entitled to be considered for employment in the MCL under the Rehabilitation scheme. Thus, Damburu Pradhan as land-oustee nominated the name of the Petitioner and applied for employment since no one except the Petitioner was eligible for employment from his family. The land outstee Damburu Pradhan has one son named Gumani Pradhan and one daughter named Droupadi Pradhan, as such the name of the Petitioner was sponsored and nominated for employment as other members of the family are not interested for employment.

(iii) After careful consideration, the personnel Manager issued a letter pursuant to the sponsored names by the Government, directing the Petitioner’s maternal grandfather to appear before the Scrutiny Committee with relevant documents along with the nominee, in order to provide suitable employment to one of his family members.

(iv) Thereafter, the Chief General Manager, MCL issued the appointment letter in favour of the Petitioner directing him to join in the post of Trainee (Mining) under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme as a nominee of the land oustee of Damburu Pradhan who is maternal grandfather of the Petitioner.

(v) The Petitioner, thereafter, underwent training for the post of Trainee (Mining) and after completion of his training period, he was allowed to join in his duty with effect from 15.07.1996.

(vi) The Petitioner has been rendering his service very sincerely and efficiently and never neglected in his duty for his future prospect. Therefore, his name has been considered by the DPC to promote him to the next higher post of Sr. D-E.O. Grade-II, in T & S, Grade-B.

(vii) On being promoted, the Petitioner submitted his joining report for the post of Sr. D.E.O., Grade-II in T & S Grade-B at Central Workshop (X), Talcher.

(viii) The  Petitioner  while  continuing  in  his  promotional  post,  a  Sub-committee meeting was held on 02.08.2013 under the Chairmanship of Collector, Angul along with other members. In the said meeting, the proposal for discussion and decision as per agenda was made.

(ix) Even though the Petitioner being the grandson of the land oustee has been lawfully appointed under the Rehabilitation & Resettlement Scheme and he has also served for more than 20 years, in the said meeting a wrong decision was taken regarding termination of the Petitioner on the plea that/ he being the daughter’s son of the land oustee does not belong to the family member of the land oustee (Damburu Pradhan) and he cannot be allowed to continue.

(x) The land outstee Damburu Pradhan first of all nominated his son-in-law Sri Duryodhan Pradhan who faced the interview but due to frequent illness he was unable to serve under the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5 i.e. MCL. Thereafter, the nominee was changed to provide employment to the Petitioner who is the grandson (daughter’s son).

(xi) It appears that the son of Damburu Pradhan has already been employed under the MCL at the relevant point in time, as such the name of the Petitioner had been considered for employment as the nominee of the land oustee.

(xii) The Opposite Party No.7 (Loknath Pradhan) who is the grandon of land outstee Damburu Pradhan submitted a grievance petition to consider his case to provide him a suitable employment as a land oustee and the same was rejected due to delay in filing the said grievance petition, but subsequently the grievance petition was forwarded by the District Administration for which it was again reopened and fresh decision was taken for termination of the Petitioner vide the proceeding of the Sub-Committee meeting of MCL held on 02.08.2013 at DRDA Conference Hall, Angul

(xiii) The petitioner has filed W.P(C) No.11065 of 2014, challenging the decision of the Sub-Committee meeting held on 02.08.2013 for termination of the Petitioner and praying therein to quash such resolution of the Sub-Committee as well as not to terminate the Petitioner from service. In the said Writ Petition, notice was issued. However, on 19.04.2016, the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5/ MCL issued show cause notice to the Petitioner calling him to show cause as to why his service should not be terminated.

(xiv) Thereafter, the Petitioner was terminated vide order dated 07.05.2016 issued by the General Manager, CWS(X), Talcher. Hence, this Writ Petition.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions.

(i) After long lapse of time Loknath Pradhan who is the grandson (son’s son) of land outstee Damburu Pradhan had applied for employment claiming himself as a rightful nominee of the land outstee. But, on the other hand, the father of said Loknath Pradhan had never applied for any employment under the MCL. He also did not object the employment of the Petitioner who was duly considered to get employment as the nominee of the land oustee. After lapse of 20 years, the said nomination has been challenged by the grandson (son’s son) of the land outstee Damburu Pradhan is not sustainable in law. On the other hand, the son of land outstee Damburu Pradhan named Gumani Pradhan (father of the Opposite Party No.7) had never objected the employment of his brother-in-law as well as his nephew i.e. Jayanta Kumar Pradhan the present Petitioner. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.7 has no locus standi to challenge the nomination of the Petitioner after 20 years of employment of the present Petitioner. Hence, the decision taken by the Sub-committee was without jurisdiction as the Petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before he was terminated.

(ii) Further, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, challenging his termination from service, after long twenty years of service, even though, there is no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct. It is submitted that the Petitioner is in no way at fault and continued in employment for a long 20 years to the best satisfaction of the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5/ MCL authorities. As such with a legitimate expectation, a right for continuance in the service is accrued in favour of the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court i.e. Vikas Pratap Singh &Others Vrs. State Of and Chhatisgarh & others1 and Rajesh Kumar & Others Vrs. State of Bihar & Others2 to buttress his points.

(iii) The maternal grandfather of the Petitioner, who was a land oustee, while nominating the name of the Petitioner for employment under the Rehabilitation scheme had categorically stated that the Petitioner is his daughter's son. It is pertinent to mention here that the only son of the land oustee was already in employment on his own merit and his grandson i.e. Respondent No.7 was a minor at that point of time. As such, in the family of the land oustee, the Petitioner was the only eligible and available for such rehabilitation employment. It is further submitted, neither the Petitioner nor had his maternal grandfather ever made any misrepresentation/suppression/fraud before the MCL authorities and there is also no allegation of misconduct against the Petitioner.

(iv) The only basis on which the impugned show cause notice was issued and the subsequent termination of the present Petitioner was effected is that as per the State's Rehabilitation & Resettlement Policy, a land oustee cannot nominate his daughter's son for employment under the scheme. In this respect the Petitioner submitted that the term family has been defined at Clause-3 of the uniform guideline for rehabilitation of the displaced persons/ families due to S.E.C.L. projects at Sambalpur and Dhenkanal districts i.e. “A family in the aforesaid context shall include the husband and wife as the case may be and their unmarried children, but does not include a major son who has been separated from the family on or before the date of notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, in respect of area/village- He shall be treated as a separate family.”

(v) From a bare reading of aforesaid clause, it is abundantly clear that nowhere the said clause bars/excludes the nomination of daughter's son for employment under the scheme.

(vi) It is further contended that the MCL authorities have extended good number of employment to the land oustee's daughter's son and son in law, which is apparent on the face of the Annexure- 12 of the Writ Petition and Annexure-15 series annexed to the rejoinder filed by the Petitioner. Therefore, such termination of the Petitioner only on the said ground is discriminatory and may not be tenable in law.

(vii) It is also contended that neither a single document on the basis of which the impugned show cause notice issued had been served on the Petitioner nor had adequate opportunity been given to the Petitioner to put-forth his response to the said show cause notice. Therefore, it is contended that the proceeding of the Sub-Committee meeting of MCL held on 02.08.2013 at DRDA Conference Hall, Angul, show-cause notice dated 19.04.2016 issued by the General Manager, CWS(X), Talcher, MCL and the Termination order dated 07.05.2016 issued by the General Manager, CWS(X), Talcher are liable to be quashed.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NOS.1 TO 5/ MCL:

Per contra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5/ MCL earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) As per the provisions of R & R Policy of Government of Odisha circulated vide Ref No.GE (SBP)96/88.71/R, dated 02.01.1989, only one member from the family sustaining loss of dwelling houses, homestead land and agricultural lands not less than 1/3rd of the total holding shall be provided with employment on a priority basis. Subsequently, the Revenue & Excise Department. Government of Odisha, vide Ref. No. GE(Coal)-5/91/5408/R, dated 30.01.1992 has clarified that “in the guidelines regarding rehabilitation assistance, the term family has been defined to include husband, wife and unmarried children.” Therefore, the question of the family of a married daughter being eligible for employment under rehabilitation assistance does not arise.

(ii) The Collector, Angul in his letter addressed to the Director (Personnel), MCL vide reference No.258 dated 08.02.2011 stated that employment of Jayant Pradhan, the Petitioner, was not as per criteria and further the case SriLoknath  Pradhan,  grandson  of  Dama  Pradhan  should  be considered for employment as vetted by MCL authorities and approved by the Collector, Angul.

(iii) The aforesaid case was put up for consideration in the 335th meeting of the Functional Directors (F.Ds) on 13.07.2011 which was earlier regretted by them in the 329th meeting of the Functional Directors on 14.05.2011.

(iv) That the Sub-Committee of Rehabilitation & Periphery Development Advisory Committee (RPDAC) in its meeting held on 02.08.2013 directed that daughter's son (Jayanta Kumar Pradhan) of RT is not coming under the purview of nominee, but MCL had provided job beyond the purview of the nominee which was illegal and action has to be taken against the officer concerned and the D.P., MCL shall-submit a report in this regard. The MCL should provide job to Lokanath Pradhan and cannot take plea that daughter's son of RT got employment earlier, as one job is due to the family of Gumani Pradhan being a separated family as on cut-off date of village Balugaon.

(v) The matter was discussed in the 37th meeting of the MCL Board’s Sub-Committee of Functional Directors for land outstee cases held on 08.05.2014 wherein it was decided to take suitable action to terminate the employment of Jayanta Kumar Pradhan who has been appointed illegally. This decision was based on the decision of the RPDAC’s Sub-Committee headed by the Collector, Angul, which termed the employment of Sri Jayanta Kumar Pradhan as illegal and contrary to the provisions of R & R Policy of the Government.

(vi) Though the Petitioner was provided employment as the nominee of the land oustee, named Dambaru Pradhan, but he being a grandson of his daughter is not a member of his family, as such he was not entitled for getting any employment and on subsequent scrutiny by the Committee appointed by the MCL as it was pointed out by the Collector, Angul, as per the provisions of R &.R Policy, 1984 of the Government of Orissa, he is not entitled to such an appointment and his service was directed to be terminated. In such view of the matter, he contended that the Petitioner has no case and the Writ Petition filed by him is liable to be dismissed.

IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

Perused the materials available on records and considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.1/ 5/MCL.

Upon hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of materials available on record, it is found that on 02.08.2013, the Sub-Committee meeting was held under the Chairmanship of Collector, Angul, along with other members in which the employment matter of Sri Lokanath Pradhan, S/o. Sri Gumani Pradhan was taken up. Sri Gumani Pradhan, who is the son of Sri Dambaru Pradha, the maternal grandfather of the Petitioner had claimed job benefits to his son, who was a minor at the time when the Petitioner was provided the employment benefit as the nominee of Dambaru Pradhan, the RT under the principle laid by the Government of Odisha in R & R policy, 1989 that one job per land outstee family has to be provided in all land acquisition matters. However, after the death of Sri Dambaru Pradhan his son Sri Gumani Pradhan claimed for job benefit for his son Sri Lokanath Pradhan. The claim was rejected by the Functional Directors of MCL on the plea that the job benefit had already been given to the Petitioner as the family member of Sri Dambaru Pradhan. But the Collector, Angul expressed his displeasure over this rejection and recommended job benefit to be provided to Sri Lokanath Pradhan, as he is to be treated as a member of a separate family of Sri Gumani Pradhan, as he was already married at the time of acquisition as per the guidelines of R & R policy, 1989. At the same time, it was also pointed out that the Petitioner’s appointment on the said ground is not coming under the purview of nominee as the Petitioner happens to be the daughter's son of Sri Dambaru Pradhan. However, since the Petitioner has already served the Opposite Parties company for more than 20 years and he was not engaged in any malpractice/ suppression of facts while securing his job. Any termination at this stage, is likely to affect his livelihood badly. He has also been promoted to the next level of posts with unblemished track record. MCL being a model employer is not supposed to do injustice to a sincere and old employee.

In such view of the matter, the Petitioner’s prayer made in this Writ Petition is allowed.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed.

Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs.

..………………………….