- (1.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the order dated 28.2.2001 passed in CWJC No. 829 of 2001 has not yet been complied with Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties with reference to paragraph 10 of the counter -affidavit, submits that the order cannot be complied with because the name of the petitioner has not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and therefore, he has not been called for interview. It appears that pursuant to the order dated 28.2.2001, an order has been passed and it is placed at running page 23 and upon perusal of paragraph 4 thereof, it is evident that only those people were interviewed whose names were recommended by the Employment Exchange.
(2.) MR . Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that the order of this Court which was passed on 28.2.2001 is based on the order dated 1.8.2000 which was passed in MJC No. 139 of 1999 (R). He places reliance on the following paragraphs, which, according to him, was passed on consent of the parties: "After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the respective pleadings filed on their behalf, we pass the following order with consent of the parties: (i) The details of the notifications under which their land were acquired. (ii) The name of the family members in whose favour award was made. (iii) Whether any member of his displaced family was employed by the management under the scheme. Such information must be furnished to the Director, Project, Land and Rehabilitation, by 31st of August, 2000. (2) On receipt of such information, the opp. party/Director, Project, Land and Rehabilitation, shall verify the correctness of the informations and forward his report to the management within four months from the date of receipt of such informations on affidavit. (3) On receipt of the report from the Director, Project, Land and Rehabilitation, the opp. party/management will implement the order of this Court strictly in accordance with the said report within three months and the compliance report must be submitted to this Court forthwith. (4) It goes without saying that if, ultimately, any of the said informations is found to be incorrect, the authority concerned will initiate appropriate proceedings including termination of the services of the persons concerned. This application is accordingly disposed of." According to Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, the Petitioner complied with the direction Nos. 1, 2, and 3 quoted above and the Director, Project -Land Rehabilitation in turn also complied and sent his recommendation to the Management by letter dated 11.4.2001 as contained in Annexure -3, but inspite thereof, the Management has not called the petitioner either for interview nor have they included his name in the panel.
(3.) MR . Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the aforementioned order quoted above cannot be read in isolation because it has to be read along with following paragraph: "Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel for the opp. Parties 1 to 3, has fairly submitted that the management is willing to implement the scheme, provided the basic information in terms of the aforesaid scheme is supplied to it in order to give effect to the proposed scheme and to implement the directions issued by the Division Bench, as mentioned above. It is submitted that the proposed scheme was introduced in order to give employment to the candidates of the displaced family whose lands were acquired in terms of the notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, at the time of setting up of the Bokaro Steel Plant. It is accordingly submitted that unless and until the following information regarding (1) notification by which the lands were acquired (2) the detail information of the family in whose favour the award was made and lastly whether any member of the displaced family was employed by the management, are made available to the management, it would create various problems for the management, to give effect to its own scheme. It is further submitted that though a list of the candidates was received from the Director, Project, Land and Rehabilitation, as far back as in October, 1988, yet without the requisite information, as aforesaid resulting the delay in implementing the order." ;