Calcutta High Court
Jitendra Nath Dutta vs Coal India Limited & Ors on 9 November, 2022
OD-1
WPO/221/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
JITENDRA NATH DUTTA
VS
COAL INDIA LIMITED & ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY
Date: 9th November, 2022.
Appearance:
Mr. Anujit Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kr. Ghosh, Adv.
...for petitioner.
Mr. Tilak Kr. Bose, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S.M. Obaidullha, Adv.
Mr. Nikkhil Kumar Roy, Adv.
...for respondent.
The Court: The present writ application has been filed, inter alia, praying
for a direction upon the respondents to provide the petitioner's son, Sri Chandan
Dutta with an employment in terms of the circular dated 21st December 1991.
Mr. Mukherjee learned advocate, appearing in support of the aforesaid
application submits that the petitioner's late father Natabar Dutta, was an
absolute owner of a property comprising of 0.78 acres of land, lying, and situated
in the District of Burdwan, Mouza Damra.
By referring to a registered deed of sale executed on 8th January, 1993, it is
submitted that the respondent no. 2 had purchased all that 0.78 acres of land
from the petitioner's father for and at a consideration as set-forth therein. Mr.
Mukherjee submits that at the relevant point of time Eastern Coalfields Limited
had adopted a policy of offering an employment to such persons, whose lands
were either acquired or purchased by the Eastern Coalfields Limited. In this
context he refers to a noting sheet/circular dated 21st December, 1991, counter
singed by the officials of the respondent no. 2.
It is submitted that in the year 1991, discussions were held between the
landowners/ land losers of Damra village and the management of the respondent
no. 2, concerning use of 49 acres of land by the respondent no 2, and based on
such discussions a decision was taken by the management of the respondent no
2 to offer employment to all such persons, whose lands were used/acquired or
purchased by the respondent no.2. In the year 1993, a proposal, based on the
above discussions was given to the petitioner's father in terms whereof the
respondent no. 2 had offered to purchase the aforesaid plots of land. The
petitioner's father based on the above promise meted out by the respondents had
transferred his land in the year 1993, by executing the aforesaid registered deed
of sale.
The petitioner, had since, approached the respondents with a request to provide
his son, Mr. Chandan Dutta, who is unemployed, with an employment. Since, such
request was not adhered to the present writ application has been filed.
It is submitted that when the present writ application was entertained, by
an order dated 22nd March, 2016, this Hon'ble Court directed the respondents to
consider the petitioner's request and to communicate a reasoned decision to the
petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 22nd March, 2016 the General
Manager, Sripur area who is the respondent no. 5 herein, after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner had passed a reasoned order dated 25th
April, 2016, and has declined to grant any relief to the petitioner.
By filing a supplementary affidavit, in terms of the liberty granted by this
Hon'ble Court on 17th May, 2016 the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid
order dated 25th April, 2016 and has brought the same on record. It is submitted
that similar circumstanced persons have been offered with employment, although
in the petitioner's case, no such employment has been offered. By relying on an
information slip issued by the land acquisition department, annexed to a
supplementary affidavit affirmed by the petitioner on 9th March, 2016, it is
submitted that that the respondents had acquired a total of 1.01 acres of land
from the petitioner's father and as such the petitioner's father having fulfilled the
criteria for grant of one employment, in terms of the guideline, the same cannot
be denied.
Mr. Mukherjee by drawing attention of the court to the order dated 25th
April, 2016, submits that the respondent no.5 had erred in rejecting the
petitioner's claim based on a change in policy. He says that the respondents also
erred in rejecting the petitioner's claim as time barred. He says that the
respondents having promised to offer an employment and the petitioner's father
having acted on the basis thereof, the respondents cannot be permitted to wriggle
out of such promise by citing change in policy. Once the respondents represented
to offer to an employment, the same no longer remained a mere representation
but assumed the character of promise and the principal of promissory estoppel
would apply. He submits that promissory estoppel applies whenever a
representation is made whether of fact or law, present or future which is
intended to be binding, intended to induce a person to act upon it and when he
does act upon the same and thereby alters his position. In support of the
aforesaid proposition Mr. Mukherjee relies on the judgment delivered in the case
of Goutam Kundu & Ors. versus Eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors., reported
in 2009 SCC online Cal 1083. He says that in the present case, the petitioner's
father had acted upon the promise made by the respondents and had transferred
0.78 acres of land unto in favour of the respondent no. 2 and had thereby altered
his position. The petitioner's father was otherwise qualified as per the guideline
for being entitled to an employment. In the backdrop as aforesaid the order
passed by the respondent no 5, on 25th April, 2016 should be set-aside and the
present writ application should be allowed, by directing the respondents to grant
an employment in favour of his son.
Per contra Mr. Bose, learned senior advocate, representing the respondent
nos. 2 to 6 submits that in the year 1992-93 Eastern Coalfields Limited had got
an approval for purchased 49 acres of land at village Damra, out of which only
0.78 acres of land was purchased from the petitioner's father vide a registered
deed of sale executed on 8th January, 1993 and another 0.23 acres of land was
acquired vide land acquisition case no. 54R of 1976-77. Thus, the total land
possessed from the petitioner's father, ad-measures 1.01 acres. By drawing
attention of this Hon'ble Court to the aforesaid registered sale deed, it is
submitted that the petitioner's father had acquired ownership in respect of the
plots forming subject matter of sale only on 6th December, 1983, whereas,
underground mining work in respect of the aforesaid plots had been carried out
between 19th December, 1974 and 1st April, 1981. As such, by the time the
petitioner's father had acquired interest in the aforesaid plots of land, the same
had already been used by the Eastern Coalfields Limited. Mr. Bose learned senior
advocate by placing reliance on a guideline issued by Eastern Coalfields Limited,
for determining eligibility of the candidates to be appointed from the land losers,
submits that as per the guideline the offer of employment was not applicable in
cases, where ownership or use of land by the land looser was not prior to the
actual user by the respondents. It is submitted that by the time the petitioner's
father had acquired interest in the land, the same was already in use. The
petitioner's father did not have any legal right to claim employment. Since the
petitioner's father did not acquire any legal right, the petitioner cannot assert any
such right, which his father did not have. Based on the guideline prepared by
Eastern Coalfields Limited, the petitioner cannot be entitled to an employment.
The aforesaid application has been filed belatedly, no explanation for such delay
has been provided by the petitioner and as such he prays for dismissal of the
present writ application.
I have considered the submission made by the advocates appearing for the
respective parties and the materials on record. I find that a policy for grant of
employment was in fact in force, as would appear from the guideline, disclosed in
the affidavit of the respondents. The said policy/guideline for grant of
employment appears to be cotemporaneous and has been annexed to the affidavit
in opposition filed by the contesting respondents.
It is, therefore, clear that a promise was meted out by the respondents to
offer employment to the land losers, however, subject to the conditions set forth
in the guideline. Once it is established that a policy for grant of employment
subsisted and the petitioner's father had acted on the basis thereof, it
consequentially follows that such a right is enforceable in law. In light of the
above the order dated 25th April, 2016 passed by the respondent no 5, loses
much of its force and requires no further consideration.
The only issue which now requires consideration is whether the petitioner's
father qualified for grant an employment as per the guideline.
It appears from the statements made in the application that the petitioner
has not challenged the conditions as set forth in the guideline of which he seeks
enforcement. I find that the guideline provides that employment shall be offered
to the nominee of the land looser for each acre of land, when the land is used up
to 31st December,1984, subject to minimum of 5 years of ownership from the
date of use of the land. From a perusal of the sale deed dated 8th January, 1993,
as rightly pointed out by Mr. Bose, it would be apparent that the petitioner's
father late Natabar Dutta, during his life time, had acquired interest in the plots
of land forming subject matter of sale, only in the year 1983. In paragraph 4 sub-
paragraph (viii) of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, it has been
claimed that the plots of land in question which from subject matter of the writ
application had been utilized between 19th December, 1974 and 1st April, 1981. It
has also been claimed by the respondents that the petitioner's father was not the
owner of the land at the relevant point of time, as such, was not entitled to claim
employment. The aforesaid paragraph has been affirmed as information derived
from records. This fact has not been denied by the petitioner by filing any
affidavit-in-reply.
I find that the writ petitioner seeks enforcement of a guideline/policy
decision taken by Eastern Coalfields Limited for grant of employment.
Clause 10 of the very same guideline provides that employment will not be
considered for ownership of used land, i.e., land purchased/acquired after the use
of the land for the purpose of employment. They will get the value of the land.
I find that the petitioner's father had received the value of the land from the
respondents as would appear from the deed of sale. The petitioner's father in
terms of the guideline, which the petitioner seeks enforcement, was thus not
entitled to an employment. Since the petitioner's father did not acquire any right
for obtaining an employment, the petitioner also cannot claim any right for grant
of an employment, in favour of his son. The persons who have got employment in
terms of the aforesaid guideline cannot be treated to be similarly placed or equal
with that of the petitioner or his father. For the aforesaid reason the petitioner
cannot claim benefit of the judgment delivered in the case of Goutam Kundu &
Ors., (Supra). The aforesaid judgment does not assist the petitioner.
The writ application fails. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the
parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.)
SK./A.Dey
