- (1.) : Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the letter dated 16.06.2005 (Annexure -9) whereby the respondent authorities had rejected the request of the petitioner No. 2 for his appointment under the respondents against acquisition of land of the petitioners in Mouza Kunji. A corresponding prayer has also been made for issuing a direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner No. 2 in terms of the understanding pursuant to the negotiations dated 13.01.1994 (Annexure -1) and the agreement dated 09.04.1995 (Annexure -2) under which, the respondent B.C.C.L. had agreed to grant 7 employments in lieu of acquisition of 13.04 acres of land.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that altogether 13.04 acres of Raiyati lands were acquired by the B.C.C.L. Pursuant to the negotiations and in terms of the agreement (Annexure -2) entered into between the respondent B.C.C.L. and the land holders, 7 employments were to be provided by way of compensatory benefits for the acquisition of land though no monetary compensation would be given to the land losers. Accordingly, the assessment of age and other aspects of 7 persons of the family of the land holders was made by the Medical Board. The age of the father of the petitioner No. 2 namely Madhvanand Dubey, was assessed at 39 years. While the remaining six persons were granted employment, the father of the petitioner No. 2 was not given such employment on the ground of his being over age, though on the assurance that his son would be given employment. Since the son namely the petitioner No. 2 at the relevant time was a minor, assurance was given vide Annexure -5 that appointment would be given to him on his attaining the age of 18 years. After attaining the age of majority, the petitioner No. 2 had placed his request for granting him employment. After delaying the matter for considerable period, the respondent authorities, by their impugned letter dated 16.06.2005 (Annexure -9), rejected the request of the petitioner No. 2. The claim of the petitioner is that the total area of 1.71 acres of land belonging to the petitioner comprising in various plots situated under Khata No. 106 within the village Kunji under the district of Dhanbad, was acquired by the respondent B.C.C.L. and the possession thereof was also taken over by the B.C.C.L. way back in the year 1995 -96 but no employment was given to the petitioner No. 2 while the other six appointees have already availed the benefits of such employment under the B.C.C.L. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent B.C.C.L. While admitting the fact that the lands belonging to the petitioners was acquired and the possession thereof was taken over by the B.C.C.L. although no monetary compensation was paid to the petitioners for such acquisition, the stand taken by the respondent B.C.C.L. is that the B.C.C.L. had utilized only 48 and 1/2 decimals of land of the petitioners and since according to the recent policy of the year 2005 of the B.C.C.L., employment can be given only against acquisition of minimum of two acres of land, the petitioners are not entitled to any employment against only 48 and 1/2 decimals of their land.
(3.) THE petitioners have countered the stand of the respondent on the ground that the B.C.C.L. had taken over possession of 1.71 acres of land way back in the year 1995 -96 and under the terms of the original agreement, there was no stipulation that employment would be granted only against a minimum limited area of land acquired. The purported policy of the respondents B.C.C.L. was introduced for the first time in the year 2005 and therefore, it cannot be made effective retrospectively. The further contention of the petitioners is that such stand of the respondent B.C.C.L. is arbitrary and discriminatory in as much as out of the six other persons who were granted employment against the acquisition of their lands, the lands belonging to two persons namely Neelkanth Dubey and Sunil Kumar Tiwari and utilized by the B.C.C.L. was only 18 decimals. It is further argued that the criteria of acquisition of minimum of two acres of land would not apply to the case of the petitioners for a further reason that such criteria would be applicable only where monetary compensation is also provided and not in cases like the present case where no monetary compensation was paid.;