R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) ALL these three writ petitions, involving common questions, were heard at length and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) MR . Sumit Gadodia, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the respondents be directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for their appointment, as they are in displaced person category (i) and their names were included in the list of 207 persons sent by the Director Project Land Rehabilitation (DPLR), Bokaro Steel City, respondent No. 2 to the Steel Authority of India Limited -respondent No. 1, and therefore they are entitled to be considered in view of specific directions given by this Court in LPA Nos. 161 and 162 of 1996 (R) as well as in MJC No. 139 of 1999(R). He further submitted that one member of each displaced family is to be given employment. Referring to paragraph 25 of the judgment reported in : AIR2005SC2994 Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Ors. he further submitted that the definition of the family includes husband, wife and minor children and other persons dependent on the head of the family and every major son like petitioners should be treated as separate family. Mr. Gadodia further submitted that the order dated 5.3.2008 of Supreme Court in S.L.A. (Civil) No. 1415 of 2007 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited v. Debu Lal Mahto and Ors. is applicable to category (ii) persons whereas petitioners are in category (i).
(3.) MR . Rajiv Ranjan, appearing for the respondents, submitted that these writ petitions has to be dismissed in view of the Division Bench judgment reported in Steel Authority of India Limited v. Jamuna Prasad Mahto etc., and also the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Debu Lal Mahto, (supra). He further submitted that the father/brother of the petitioners, were already given employment as displaced persons.;