RAJESH SHANKAR, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in Ref.No.BCCL/Kus.Area/09/1684 dated 31.12.2009, whereby the respondent no. 3 though admitted that 8 employments were to be provided in lieu of acquisition of 17.64 acres of land under land-looser scheme, yet the claim of the petitioners for employment on acquisition of 4.21 acres of land has been denied.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 4.21 acres of land of Mouza Chhota Kharikabad, Thana No. 54 under Khata No. 4 at different plots being 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 435, 439 absolutely belonged to Gobardhan Napit who exercised all his right, title, interest and possession over the said land peacefully. A land acquisition proceeding was initiated for acquisition of total 17.64 acres of land of mouza Chhota Kharikabad for mining purposes and the respondent no. 2 proposed the raiyats of the land to provide a package employment and in lieu of aforesaid acquisition, total 8 employments were to be given. The father of the petitioners Gobardhan Napit @ Pramanik was also issued notice in the aforesaid L.A. Case and accordingly, he appeared in the aforesaid proceeding along with the documents and award had been passed in his favour for payment of compensation. The respondents in view of their own policy decision provided employment to the dependants of raiyats whose, even meagre portion of land, had been acquired in the same case. Although, the petitioners' 4.21 acres of land had been acquired but no employment was given to them under Rehabilitation of Land-looser Scheme of respondents. The petitioners submitted representation on 30.07.2007 to the respondent no. 3 and requested to provide employment in lieu of acquisition of 4.21 acres of land in view of their land-looser rehabilitation scheme which provided that one employment shall be given against acquisition of 2 acres of land as well as there had been a package deal of 8 employment by the respondents against total 17.64 acres of land in which respondent Bharat Coking Coal Limited (in short to be referred as "BCCL") had given 7 employments and one employment which was to be given to the petitioners were kept in abeyance without any rhyme and reason. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent BCCL, the petitioners preferred the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3495 of 2008 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 05.11.2009 with a direction to the respondent BCCL to decide the representation of the petitioners expeditiously by reasoned order preferably within a period of four weeks. However, the representation filed by the petitioners was rejected under the signature of the Chief General Manager, BCCL, Kusunda Area, Dhanbad contained in Ref.No.BCCL/Kus.Area/09/1684 dated 31.12.2009. The said letter is under challenge in the present writ petition. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that admittedly, out of 17.64 acres of land, 8 employments were to be provided by the management of the BCCL, but only 7 employments have been given to the nominees of the land-loosers. Though the petitioners are the sons of the land-loosers namely, Gobardhan Napit, yet they have not been given any employment. The learned counsel further submits that at least, one employment should have been given by the management of BCCL to the nominee of the petitioners. So far as the delay caused in not giving employment is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners puts reliance on a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of "Prakash Munda v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited" reported in 2017 (2) JLJR 506 and submits that the authorities cannot derive any advantage on their own failure to act on time in deciding the claim of an aggrieved person.;