Md. Mozaumel Haque vs National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd.

Since the aforementioned writ applications [W.P. (S) No. 6782 of 2007 with W.P. (S) No. 4246 of 2007] involve common questions of law,

therefore, the said writ applications have been heard analogously and with the consent of the respective counsels, are being disposed of by this

common order.  Â

2. In the aforementioned writ applications [W.P. (S) No. 6782 of 2007 with W.P. (S) No. 4246 of 2007], the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for

direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for employment as displaced person as per Scheme of rehabilitation in pursuance

to the order of the Hon’ble Patna High Court dated 16.11.2000, passed in M.J.C. No. 2079 of 1998 (Annexure-8).

Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents-

NTPC.  Â

Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, as has been disclosed in the writ applications, are that the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd.

(hereinafter to be referred in short as ‘NTPC’) has established the Farraka Super Thermal Power Project at Farraka in the State of West

Bengal and the coal required for the project was to be supplied from Lalmatia Coal Fields Ltd., situated in the districts of Godda and Sahibganj, now in

the State of Jharkhand and large number of lands were required to be acquired situated in the present districts of Godda and Sahibganj for

construction of 85 Km. long railway system for transportation of coal from Lalmatia Coal Fields to Farraka in the West Bengal. It has further been

averred that the lands of the petitioners situated in the district of Sahibganj were acquired under the Lands Acquisition Act, as is detailed in the chart

prepared by the petitioners. It has further been averred that on 3.2.1992, a meeting under the Chairmanship of the Commissioner, Santhal Parganas,

Dumka with the officials of the NTPC Ltd., had been convened, where it had been categorically proposed that the process of appointment of all the

land oustees, including the petitioners be divided into three different phases of projects. It was also decided that the remaining appointments of the land

oustees would be completed in the third phase of the project. Being aggrieved by their non-appointment inspite of the fact that the respondents-

authorities themselves on a number of occasions, came to a definite and concrete finding that employment would be provided to one member of the

family of the land oustees, the petitioners left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy, have been constrained to knock the doors of this Court

for redressal of their grievances under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.     Â

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has strenuously urged that the petitioners are entitled to be appointed on Class III or Class IV posts lying

vacant on the respondents in terms of the policy decisions and in pursuance to the order of the Hon’ble Patna High Court and the nonappointment

of the petitioners is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents-authorities

themselves on a number of occasions came to a definite and concrete finding that employment would be provided to one member of the family of the

land oustees. Learned counsel further submits that non-providing of job to one member of the oustees family inspite of the existing 118 vacancies

directly affects the right of livelihood of the petitioners and therefore, offending Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits

that the effect of acquisition was that it deprived not only the head of the family or the members in whose name the land was entered in the Revenue

records but every adult member suffered the injury as he was prevented from reaping the benefit from the land both at the date when acquisition was

made and even in future.     Â

Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos. 7 and 8, wherein, it has been,

inter alia, submitted that for the acquired land for construction of 85 Km. long railway system for transportation of coal from Lalmatia Coal Fields to

Farraka in the West Bengal, compensation has been paid to the land oustees by different C.A. Case and the entire amount had been paid to the land

oustee for the said purpose by the competent authority. It has further been averred that the grievance of the petitioners mainly concerned against the

respondent nos. 1 to 4, since this is a case of land acquisition for the purpose of constructing railway line for the benefits of N.T.P.C. and for that the

N.T.P.C. is the requisitioning department and, hence, the respondent nos. 7 and 8 have nothing to do with the prayer made by the petitioners because

they are claiming appointment in N.T.P.C., Farakka.

Repudiating the contentions made in the writ application, a counter affidavit on behalf of the Respondent nos. 1 to 4 has been filed. In the counter

affidavit, it has been, inter alia, submitted that in terms of land oustee policy formulated by the Corporation for all the projects including Farakka Super

Thermal Power Station, the land oustee cases were given preference in the matter of employment in the post of unskilled and semi skilled trade of

workmen and 450 Nos. of land oustees were recruited till 1994 and since there are no vacancies lying vacant thereafter, so there is no question of

giving preference in employment to land oustees in absence of any vacancies. It has further been averred that there were 15,079 land oustees, out of

these 12,586 land oustees are from Bengal area and 2491 from Jharkhand area (erstwhile Bihar), 335 land oustees from Bengal area have been

provided employment in terms of the policy of the Corporation who were found suitable by the Selection Committee and who were meeting

specification and similarly, 115 land oustees from Jharkhand area have been provided employment and hence, 450 total land oustees have been

provided employment from Bengal and Jharkhand area.Â

As against this, at the very outset, learned counsel for the Respondents-NTPC submitted that the claim of the petitioner is hopelessly time barred

and the petitioner approached this Court after lapse of more than three decades and by such long span of time, interest of other parties may also arise,

which cannot be brushed aside at this point of time, if the petitioners’ claim is entertained. Learned counsel further submits that the resolution

dated 03.02.1992 relied upon in the instant writ application was similarly pleaded as a cause of action for appointment by another land oustee before

the Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 952 of 1997 and the said challenge has been rejected and the writ application was dismissed by a

reasoned order dated 27.03.1998.

After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the

petitioner due to the following facts and reasons : -Â

(i) Prima facie, both the writ petitions appear to be barred by gross delay and latches and now more than 25 years have lapsed and by such long span

of time, interest of other parties may also arise, which cannot be brushed aside at this point of time, if the petitioners’ claim is entertained. Â

(ii) The resolution dated 03.02.1992 relied upon in the instant writ application was similarly pleaded as a cause of action for appointment by another

land oustee challenged before the Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 952 of 1997 and the said challenge has been rejected and the writ

application was dismissed by a reasoned order dated 27.03.1998.

(iii) It is no more res integra and settled proposition of law that recommendation does not create any indefeasible right of employment.

(iv) In similar facts and circumstances, the cause of action for appointment by other land oustees have been challenged before this Court in W.P. (S)

No. 4205 of 2012 and W.P. (S) No. 28 of 2015 and co-ordinate Bench of this Court has been pleased to reject the said challenge vide reasoned orders

dated 28.02.2014 and 22.06.2018 and dismissed the aforesaid writ applications. Â

As a logical sequitur to the facts, reasons and discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs and conclusions arrived at by this Court, no relief can

be granted to the petitioners. Accordingly, both these writ applications [W.P. (S) No. 6782 of 2007 with W.P. (S) No. 4246 of 2007] being devoid of

any merit, stand dismissed.Â