Ananda Sen, J. - (1.) The petitioner claims to be a displaced person. He claims that several displaced persons have been appointed in Bokaro Steel Plant, as their lands were acquired for establishing the said plant, but the petitioner has not been offered appointment, though the land of the petitioner was also acquired.
(2.) The issue of employment of land loosers of Bokaro has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1774 of 2008, vide order dated 5.3.2008, in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Daby Lal Mahto & Ors. [2008(3) J.C.R 152 (SC) ]. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the said judgment reads as follows: 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 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 a 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or informal in regard to offer of employment to one member of every dispossessed family in the project will stand withdrawn. 10. It is unfortunate that despite the scheme having been withdrawn way back in 1986, the same finds no mention in any of the litigation which has arisen with regard to the project.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 perhaps things would have been different. But unfortunately, this basic fact has 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. 11. 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. 12. However, the order to put an end to the controversy at hand, we direct that the 970 persons whose names have been included in category (ii) as per order dated 7.4.1998 of the High Court will be considered for appointment, other things being equal. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that I the advertisement dated on 1.6.2007 for 300 general vacancies it has been mentioned that vacancies it has been mentioned that preference will be given to those displaced persons whose lands have been acquired. The relevant portion of the advertisement reads as under: Preference will be given to local displaced persons of Bokaro as per Company's policy . It may be made clear that consideration of the names of persons for employment does not given them a right to appointment. Other things being equal. They will be given preference in the matter of employment as and when vacancies arise.
(3.) From this judgment, it is clear that to set at rest the entire controversy, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed that 970 persons whose names have been included in category (ii), as per the order dated 7.4.1998 of the Hon'ble High Court will be considered for appointment, other things being equal. It is also clear from the said judgment that an advertisement was published for 300 general vacancies and it was mentioned that preference will be given to those displaced persons whose lands have been acquired. This observation/direction finds place in paragraph 12 of the said judgment.;