Bombay High Court
Chhabutai W/O Bhalchandra ... vs Western Coalfields Ltd., Through ... on 30 August, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, Urmila Sachin Phalke
2023:BHC-NAG:12919-DB
908.wp.1690.18.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.1690 OF 2018
(Chhabutai w/o Bhalchandra @ Bhalerao Dethe and anr. Vs. W.C.L. and anr.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P.D. Meghe, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. A.M. Ghare, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE &
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 30, 2023
Heard Mr. Meghe, learned Counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Ghare, learned Counsel for the
respondents.
2. The petition questions the communication
dated 07/11/2017 (page 44(A)) whereby the claim of the
petitioner for being granted employment on account of
the land of the mother of the petitioner being Survey No.1
admeasuring 1.21 H.R. at Juna Kunada, Tahsil
Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur which came to be
acquired by way of Notification under Section 9 of the
Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act,
1957 (for short "the Coal Bearing Act") dated
21/02/2004, has been rejected.
3. It is contended that in terms of the policy
dated 25/08/2000 (page 17), the petitioner was entitled
to nominate her daughter who was then unmarried, the
marriage have been taken place on 23/03/2004 for the
purpose of employment. The judgment of this Court in
Writ Petition No.3583/2012 (Ananta Rangnath Awari and
ors. Vs. W.C.L. and ors.) decided on 18/12/2012 has been
pressed into service. So also the communication dated
16/11/2021 by the W.C.L. which includes divorcee
daughter in the definition of 'family' has also been pressed
into service on account of petitioner No.2 having been
divorced by her husband by the Decree of Divorce dated
24/08/2016. It is contended that thereafter there is a
communication issued by the respondents indicating grant
of employment to the persons whose land has been
acquired under the aforesaid project by the
communication dated 09/11/2015 (page 91). It is,
therefore, contended that petitioner No.2, in spite of the
fact that she has received monetary compensation against
the package of employment in lieu of the claim for
employment having deposited the amount in this Court to
show her bonafides in pursuance to the order dated
31/03/2023, is entitled to be appointed under the policy.
4. Mr. Ghare, learned Counsel for the petitioners
opposes the contention and submits that the petitioner
No.2 was not covered by the Resettlement and
Rehabilitation Policy of Coal India Ltd. dated 25/08/2000,
and therefore, the rejection is proper.
5. It is not in dispute that the land of the
petitioner No.1 being Survey No.1 admeasuring 1.21 H.R.
situated at village Juna Kunada, Tahsil Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur has been acquired by the respondents
under the Notification dated 21/02/2004 issued under
Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Act. The applicability of the
Policy of the year 2000 is also not disputed. It is also not
disputed that petitioner No.1 had at that point of time
received the monetary compensation in lieu of
employment and had also given a declaration to the
respondents that she had no legal heirs entitled for
employment (page 44(A)).
6. The judgment in Ananta Rangnath Awari and
ors. Vs. W.C.L. and ors. (supra) has been passed on an
admission by the respondents that in spite of the Policy of
the year 2000, the employment was given to 31 persons
who had not received the compensation in lieu of
employment and this was so on the basis of a decision
taken in the meeting dated 18/02/2004 wherein it was
communicated that no employment will be provided. It is
on this basis that the Court held that non-affording of an
opportunity to the other owners whose land was acquired
under the said notification will be discriminatory, and
therefore, they would equally be entitled to an
opportunity. What is material to note is that this Court in
Ananta Rangnath Awari and ors. Vs. W.C.L. and ors.
(supra) does not hold that such opportunity of an
employment has to be granted dehors the Policy of 2000.
7. If the policy of 2000 is considered, the
definition of family as contend therein in Clause 11 is
material. The definition of family under Clause 11 is as
follows :
"family" includes a person, his or her
spouse, minor sons, unmarried
daughters, minor brothers, unmarried
sisters, father, mother and other
relatives residing with him or here and
dependent on him or her for their
livelihood, and includes "nuclear
family" consisting of a person, his or
her spouse and minor children.'
8. It is necessary to note that the definition of
'family' does not include a divorced daughter. A divorced
daughter only came to be included in the definition of
'family' in the Policy of the year 2012, that too with
prospective effect and is indicated to be so by the
communication dated 16/11/2021(page 103). Thus, the
policy as it stood in the year 2004, which is the relevant
time, did not include a divorced daughter. It is an
admitted position that the daughter of petitioner No.1 i.e.
petitioner No.2 was married on 23/03/2004. The Deed of
Divorce placed on record is of the year 2016, which is
under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The
status of the petitioner No.2, therefore, as a divorcee in
2016 is post the new Rehabilitation and Resettlement
(R&R) policy of the year 2012. It is therefore apparent,
that the petitioner No.2 was clearly not covered within
definition of 'family' as occurring in the R&R policy of the
year 2012. This being the position, any change in the
policy would not accrue the benefit of the petitioner as the
petitioners would be governed by the policy of the year
2000 and not of the year 2012.
9. In that light of the matter, we do not see any
infirmity in the action on the part of the respondents in
not considering the claim of the petitioners for grant of
employment to petitioner No.2 under the policy of the
year 2000.
10. The petition is therefore without any merits
and is accordingly dismissed.
11. The amount deposited in this Court by the
petitioners is permitted to be withdrawn with accrued
interest if any.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE ,J.)
*Divya
Signed by: Mrs. Divya Baldwa
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 31/08/2023 17:24:32
