S.N.Pathak, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing/ setting aside the decision contained in letter dated 16.06.2017 (Annexure-7), issued by respondent No. 2, whereby, the petitioner No. 2 has been communicated that it is not possible to offer employment to petitioner No. 1, in view of order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 06.03.2017, in W.P.(S). No. 5077 of 2016. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to offer the employment to petitioner No. 1, as 2.006 acres of land of petitioners have been acquired by the respondents vide Land Acquisition Case No. 24/81-82 and Land Acquisition Case No. 18/81-82.
(3.) The facts of the case in nutshell is as follows:- In the year 1981-82, the respondents have acquired 2.006 acres of land of the petitioners vide Land Acquisition Case no. 24/81-82 and Land Acquisition Case No. 18/81-82. At that point of time, the father of petitioner No. 1 was alive however, subsequently, in the year 1994, he passed away. It is the further case of the petitioners that on 15.12.1995, petitioner No. 2 made an application to the General Manager, Bhowra Area No. 11 of BCCL for giving employment to her eldest son, Ganesh Mahto but no heed was paid to her said representation. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 2 again made an application on 02.01.2013, requesting the General Manager, Bhowra Area No. 11 of BCCL to offer employment to her sons, Ganesh Mahto, Kartik Mahto and Amardeep Mahto. The petitioner No. 2, however was asked to give the name of only one person for employment. On being so asked, the petitioner No. 2 again submitted another application on 13.03.2015, claiming employment for petitioner No. 1, Kartik Mahto only. Thereafter, the file with respect to employment of petitioner No. 1, was moved from one office to another and details of lands of the petitioners acquired by the respondents and other particulars with respect to employment of petitioner No. 1, were recorded in the file on 13.04.2015 by the General Manager and respondent No. 2, wherein recommendation was made for employment to petitioner No. 1 under the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy (for short "R.R. Policy"). Subsequently, a detailed note-sheet has been recorded on 05.02.2016 by the Sr. Manager (Mines), whereby, the proposal was forwarded to the competent authority under R.R. Policy with respect to employment to the petitioner No. 1. The Deputy General Manager, East Jharia Area also recorded on 25.12.2016 that no employment has been offered to any of the family members of the petitioners for acquiring the land of the petitioners and hence, the case of petitioner No. 1 for employment can be considered under the R.R. Policy. The file was processed further at one or the other authorities but ultimately by the notes-sheet dated 07.06.2017 it was disclosed that because of the some order passed in W.P.(S). No. 5077 of 2016 on 06.03.2017, the case of the petitioner No. 1 for employment cannot be considered. Subsequently, the case of the petitioner No. 1 for employment has been rejected and the order to that effect was communicated to petitioner No. 2 vide letter dated 16.06.2017. Upon receipt of the said letter, the petitioner No. 2 again submitted an application on 26.06.2017 for reconsideration of the case of petitioner No. 1 for giving him employment but all went in vain. Hence, the petitioners have been constrained to knock the door of this Hon'ble Court.;