R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition was filed for a direction on the respondents to provide our employments to the petitioners against the acquisition of their three louses.
(2.) MR . Tiwary, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that when employment was not provided, they filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3800 of 1995 (R), which was disposed of on 4.10.1996, in which the respondents said that they were ready to provide employment to the petitioners, if they vacate the houses and move to the alternative file. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to vacate the lands and premises and go to the alternative site and then pray for appointment with no objection certificates of other co -sharers and when such certificate is produced, respondent No. 1 was to provide employment. As per the said order, petitioners vacated the land but they have not been provided employment and therefore they had to file this writ petition. The office order dated 27.11.2001/3.12.2001 (Annexure -6) was referred to show that the employment of the petitioner -Santosh Kumar Dubey was in process. Mr. Mehta, appearing for the respondents, submitted as follows. The acquisition was made in 1982 -83 but petitioners did not vacate their houses in spite of receiving the awarded compensation in 1985. Only four decimals of land with house of each of the petitioners was acquired and against such small land they were not entitled to employment as per the scheme but even then the respondents offered employment if petitioners vacated the houses and the lands and moved to alternative site. Therefore, this Court clearly directed the petitioners to vacate the premises and move to alternative site first and then pray for employments. This order was passed as far back as on 4.10.1996 but Petitioners vacated/surrendered the premises only on 8.4.2002. They went on insisting that they should be given employment first and then they will vacate. Till filing of counter affidavit on 23.1.2004, the portion of land/houses were in occupation of the co - sharers of the petitioners, as stated in paragraph 11, which has not been denied by the petitioners in their rejoinder. Thus petitioners themselves did not comply with the said order dated 4.10.1996. In the meantime, a new policy has come in August, 2000. The respondents are not in a position to provide employment in lieu of the house Referring to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the affidavit filet on 27.11.2007, he further submitted that respondents are already having surplus man power and now the Company has become a sick Industry and is registered with the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR).
(3.) FROM the facts and circumstances, noticed above, it is clear that by order dated 4.10.1996, the petitioners were directed to vacate the premises and move to alternative site and thereafter they could request for employment. According to the petitioners, they vacated the premises on 8.4.2002. There is nothing to show that the delay of more than six years was on the part of the respondents in providing the alternative site. From paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit filed on 23.1.2004, it appears that even up to January, 2004, the premises was not fully vacated, by the petitioners/their co -sharers, which position is not denied by the petitioners. It is also not disputed that after the said order was passed on 4.10.1996 the respondent, a Public Sector Undertaking, has become a sick industry und has been registered under (BIFR).;