These batch of writ appeals have been filed which can be dissected into
two main groups. One batch of writ appeals arises out of order dated 25.01.2018
passed in W.P. No. 7968/2009 and W.P. No. 11456/2009, so also order dated
09.08.2018 passed in R.P. No. 359/2018 and R.P. No. 364/2018 whereby the
learned Single Judge has directed the respondent Coal India Limited ("CIL" for
short) and South Eastern Coalfields Limited ("SECL" for short, and which is a
subsidiary of CIL) and the State Government to scrutinize the appointments of
516 persons made in terms of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy ("R &
R Policy" for short) of CIL of the year 2008. The dispute in this batch of writ
appeals relates to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge whereby it
has been directed that R & R Policy of the M.P. Government of the year 1991 as
amended in 1995, 1996 & 1998 so also the Coal India R& R Policy 2012 should
be followed to make available 899 vacancies and further directions have been
issued that 516 persons already appointed be scrutinized in the light of Govt. of
M.P. R & R Policy 1991 and Coal India Policy of 2012 and if the appointments
which are made contrary to the said policy are cancelled, then the posts fallen
vacant due to cancellation of such appointments shall be filled up by the
respondents in accordance with the policy. The entire exercise was directed to be
conducted under the supervision of the District Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Committee ("DRCC" for short) headed by the Collector District Anooppur.
2. The other batch of writ appeals and some writ petitions arises out of the
consequential action taken in terms of the said decision of the learned single
Judge whereby the District Rehabilitation and Resettlement Committee (DRRC)
has taken the decision and has decided to follow 2012 policy of Coal India
Limited in descending order in place of pooling/grouping of land and to
terminate the employees who are not found to be appointed in accordance with
1991 M.P. R&R Policy and as per Coal India Limited R& R Policy 2012 if
followed in descending order. In these batch of writ appeals and writ petitions,
the consequential termination orders issued by the SECL are put to challenge.
Some of such petitions have been disposed of by the learned Single Judge
granting stay on termination of the service till W.A. No. 1222/2018 arising out of
W.P. No. 7968/2009 and W.P. No. 11456/2009 is decided and further the said writ
petitions have been disposed of awaiting outcome of the said writ appeal and
granting liberty to the petitioners therein to avail appropriate remedy available to
them under the law in case W.A. No. 1222/2018 is decided adverse to the interest
of the said petitioners. Some such orders have been challenged by the employer
Coal India Limited or SECL being aggrieved by grant of stay on termination
orders by filing writ appeals.
3. Therefore, it was mutually agreed during the course of hearing by counsel
of all the parties that W.A. No. 1222/2018 is the lead matter, the fate of which
would decide the fate of all the connected matters because the said appeals arises
out of the W.P. No. 7968/2009 and W.P. No. 11456/2009 wherein the learned
Single Judge vide order dated 25.01.2018 has directed to carry out scrutiny of
appointments and to grant appointments in a particular manner as per M.P. R& R
Policy of 1991 and Coal India Ltd. R & R Policy of the year 2012. Therefore,
these matters were heard on 28.04.2025 taking W.A. No. 1222/2018 as the lead
matter because its fate would have bearing of all the matters. It is not disputed
that if the said writ appeal is allowed then the relief has to be granted in all the
writ petitions and writ appeals arising out of consequential action taken by the
DRRC and SECL and if the W.A. No. 1222/2018 is dismissed then this Court has
to contemplate that what consequential action has to follow and what would be
the fate of the persons appointed as per the Coal India Ltd. R&R Policy 2008.
4. After these matters were heard taking W.A. No. 1222/2018 to be the lead
matter, thereafter an application I.A. No. 7571/2025 was received in said writ
appeal for rehearing of the matter on the ground that some of the counsel for
some of the appellants were not available and therefore, this court should rehear
the entire bunch. Apart from seeking rehearing of the matter the same applicants
have filed written submission on behalf of the appellants. An application for
rehearing has been received in W.P. No. 15107/2020 setting forth in detail that in
what manner various cases are different from each other. All the said aspects
were argued in detail by the counsel who appeared for the rival parties during the
course of hearing on 28.04.2025 and this court had heard Shri R.K. Verma-
Senior Advocate and Shri Naman Nagrath-Senior Advocate who led arguments
on behalf of the affected persons who are affected by the order passed in W.P.
No. 7968/2009 and W.P. No. 11456/2009 so also the affected persons in various
other writ appeals filed by already appointed persons.
5. On the other hand, the arguments were led by Shri K.C. Ghildiyal-Senior
Counsel for the persons who have been challenging the appointments of the
persons appointed in terms of Coal India R & R Policy of the year 2008 as well
as Shri Anoop Nair- Senior Advocate who appeared for Coal India Ltd./SECL.
As the arguments were heard in detail on 28.04.2025 and distinguishing features
of all the different cases have been narrated to the Court in detail by counsel for
rival parties and fully understood by the Court, therefore, the matter having been
heard and closed for arguments, therefore the subsequent applications for
rehearing of the matter have no force and are therefore closed.
6. W.A. No. 1222/2018 is being decided as lead matter because it is on
account of the impugned order challenged in the said writ appeal that the DRRC
carried out the consequential scrutiny proceedings on the basis of which many
appointees have been terminated from service, who have also approached this
Court and therefore, their cases also tagged with this bunch.
7. The history of the present litigation starts from 1994 when the Central
Government in exercise of its power under Section 4 (1) of Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition & Development) Act 1957 (for short " the Act of 1957") gave notice
of its intention to prospect for coal in 3412.610 hectares of land in Kotma Tehsil
of District Shahdol (Now in District Anooppur after bifurcation of erstwhile
Shahdol District) which is admittedly a Scheduled Tribal area as per Schedule V
of the Constitution of India. Thereafter by notification dated 06.02.1996 the
Central Government in terms of the provisions of Act 1957 gave notice of its
intention to acquire the rights to mine, quarry, bore, dig, search for, win, work
and carry away minerals in the lands measuring 3407.408 hectares. The
objections were invited in writing by the said notification. On 04.02.1997 the
Central Government issued notification of its satisfaction of necessity to acquire
the said land and thereafter vide notification dated 24.06.1998 under Section 9(1)
of the Act of 1957, the Central Government declared that the rights to mine,
quarry, bore, dig, search, win, work and carry away minerals in the aforesaid
lands are acquired and were therefore vested in the SECL by an order issued by
the Central Government under Section 11(1) of the Act of 1957. The Central
Government, Ministry of Coal thereafter wrote a letter dated 31.08.2001 to the
Collector District Shahdol requesting him to arrange for acquisition of various
parcels of land for Amadand Open Cast Mine of Jamuna-Kotma Area under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short " the 1894 Act") and to take possession of
the same as provided under Section 17 of the said Act of 1894. Pursuant thereto
the State Government issued a notification on 28-02-2004 under Section 4 of the
Act of 1894 for acquiring the said land and thereafter, notification under Section
6 was issued on 23.05.2004 and proceedings under Section 9 were completed on
05.09.2004 leading to passing of the award on 30.11.2004. Panchanama of
symbolic possession was prepared on 07.01.2005 handing over symbolic
possession of land to the SECL which deposited an amount of Rs. 17.49 crores to
compensate the owners of the land and houses that were located on the land.
Many persons undisputedly withdrew the amount.
8. Thereafter, the aforesaid acquisition was challenged on various grounds
before this Court which were decided in batch of matters lead by W.P.
13561/2005 which was a Public Interest Litigation filed by Sarpanch of the
affected Gram Panchayat where acquisition was to take place and various
grounds were taken to challenge the acquisition inter alia the ground that no
acquisition could take place in a Schedule Tribal area. A Division Bench of this
Court passed detailed order on 12.11.2008 deciding W.P. No. 13561/2005 and
batch of writ petitions and ultimately held in paragraph 24 therein that the State
Government and SECL will ensure that the persons who are eligible to the
rehabilitation facility indicated in the M.P. R & R Policy of 1991 will receive the
said facility of rehabilitation and resettlement. The Central Government was also
directed to issue notification under the 1957 Act for acquisition of land and take
possession of the land in question in the manner detailed in para 22 of the said
judgment. In para 22 of Division Bench had held that instead of quashing the
acquisition proceedings, it is immaterial under which Act the acquisition has
been made, but the land owner should be given higher compensation applicable
to avoid discrimination. Therefore, the Division Bench directed that
compensation be determined under the 1957 Act and any compensation already
received by owners of the land will be adjusted by the compensation to be
determined under the Act of 1957.
9. The aforesaid order was put to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in SLP (C) No. 2915/2009 and initially the Supreme Court stayed the
operation of the judgment on 18.02.2009 subject to compliance of rehabilitation
as directed in the said judgment. Subsequently, agreement for opening of mines
were arrived at between the villagers on 20.02.2009 and 23.02.2009.
Subsequently, the interim order was also modified by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
10. After various discussions between management and land oustees and in
presence of local authority a proposal was issued in view of Coal India Limited
R & R Policy 2008 which had come into existence in the intervening period
wherein SECL offered the land oustees to give R & R benefits in clubbing
concept wherein SECL offered one employment per two acres of land. The SECL
also decided to extend the facility of land pooling/clubbing to those land losers
whose land was less than two acres who could get their land clubbed with the
lands of other land losers by giving the land in group. The entire disputes relate
to three villages i.e. Nimha, Kuhka and Amadand. It was also decided that the
entire land acquired by the SECL i.e. 1729 acres will be taken as one unit and
land losers could pool their land situated in any of the three villages and parcel of
the land need not independently be pooled at least 2.00 acres in any one of the
villages.
11. The SECL sought consent letters from various land losers and in
compliance of R & R Policy 2008 of Coal India Limited under which the
rehabilitation had taken place, it started giving out appointments to the land
losers or their kin. It is not disputed that the appellants/writ petitioners in the
other group of this batch of cases are those persons who have been appointed
under the CIL R&R Policy 2008.
12. The writ petitioner of W.P. 7968/2009 i.e. Komal Kewat filed a writ
petition seeking to challenge the appointment of 108 persons who had been
appointed contrary to the M.P.R&R Policy 1991 on the ground that appointments
have been made to 108 ineligible persons in violation of the R&R Policy of the
M.P. Government of 1991. This writ petition was initially disposed of on
13.10.2011 holding that the 65 appointments made by the respondents in
accordance with R&R Policy 1991 of M.P. Government shall not be disturbed
and the appointments made by the respondents No. 1 to 5 in contravention of the
order dated 16.02.2009 passed by the Supreme Court were quashed and the said
respondents were set at liberty to approach the Supreme Court to seek
clarification of the order dated 16.02.2009. It is not in dispute that during
pendency of said writ petition total 506 appointments under CIL policy 2008
clubbing concept and 10 under M.P.R&R Policy 1991 i.e. total 516 appointments
have been made. Being aggrieved by that SECL preferred W.A. No. 1237/2011
and W.A. No. 1238/2011 which were entertained by the Division Bench and
status quo was granted vide order dated 02.12.2011 considering the drastic effect
of 500 persons who were anticipated to be made jobless and further directed the
SECL to come forward with some solution agreeable to all the parties. Various
affidavits and applications were filed before the Division Bench of this Court in
writ appeal and parallely various affidavits were filed before the Supreme Court
in pending SLP that in what manner the parties intended to dissolve the dispute
in the matter of granting appointment to land losers as part of the R&R exercise.
The SLP (C) No. 2915/2009 was ultimately disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court on 12.08.2014 and it was stated before the Supreme Court by SECL that
they would follow the policy setup by the State of M.P. for grant of employment
to land losers and in addition, even the subsequent policy laid down i.e. R&R
Policy of the Coal India Limited 2012 shall be followed and all the 899 persons
will be given employment because as per the quantum of land acquired, 899
employments are assessed to be given. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter
upheld the order of Division Bench in W.P. 13561/2005 with the modification to
the extent submitted by learned counsel for SECL. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
passed the following order :-
It has been further submitted by him that no land owner has
filed any appeal which is to be decided in accordance with
Section 14 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition &
Development) Act, 1957, and, therefore, the Tribunal has not
been constituted.
In view of the above facts stated by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, we see no reason to interfere with
the impugned order passed by the High Court. The impugned
order stands modified to the extent as submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioners.
The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly."
13. After the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the writ appeal
which was pending before this Court against the order passed in W.P. 11456/2009
and i.e. W.A. No. 1237/2011 was decided and also W.A. 1238/2011 arising out of
WP No. 7968/2009 was decided and it was held that once the appointment of 108
persons was challenged in the writ petition then whether more than that
appointments could be interfered with, secondly whether without challenging the
agreement between the Management and the concerned land losers who were
though de-hors the R&R Policy of M.P. 1991, the appointments made could be
questioned by the writ petitioner who was not claiming any appointment for
himself and thirdly whether all the affected persons are required to be heard in
the writ petition. Further that the Supreme Court has not injuncted nor prohibited
the Management from appointing more persons on the basis of mutual agreement
when the appointment of any person eligible to be appointed in terms of M.P.
R&R Policy 1991 was not adversely affected by such appointments. Therefore
for considering all the issues, the matter was remanded back to the learned single
Judge by the Division Bench to decide the writ petition afresh after considering
such issues and further to examine the effect of final judgment Hon'ble Supreme
Court dated 12.08.2014.
14. The relevant portion of the order of the Division Bench remanding the
matter is as under:-
"According to the learned Single Judge, the appointments
made by the appellant inspite of order dated 16.02.2009 were
not in conformity with the Policy of 1991, but, under the
agreements arrived at between the land oustees and
management on 20.02.2009 and 23.02.2009.
Having said this, the learned Single Judge in para 16
proceeded to opine that appointments so made were contrary to
the direction given by the Supreme Court on 16.02.2009 and
for which reason, the same should be revoked and quashed.
This is the substance of the reasoning given by the learned
Single Judge.
After having gone through the relevant documents and the oral
arguments, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has
glossed over some of the cardinal issues that ought to have
been addressed in the first instance. In that, the relief claimed
by the petitioner in the subject writ petition filed on
06.08.2009, was in respect of 108 persons including persons
named in Annexure P-16 being in violation of the
Rehabilitation Policy of 1991.
The first preliminary objection that was raised in the response
filed to oppose the writ petition was about the locus of the
petitioner to question those appointments. The petitioner in the
relief claimed in the writ petition was not claiming direction
against the appellants for being appointed on any post much
less under the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991.
The second preliminary objection that ought to have been
considered is: whether without challenging the agreement
entered between the management and the concerned affected
persons dehors the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991, the
appointments made thereunder could be questioned that too by
the writ petitioner who was not claiming any relief of
appointment for himself.
The incidental issue in the context of challenge to the
appointment of 108 persons referred to in the prayer clause of
the subject writ petition would be whether the petition suffered
from non-joinder of persons who were to be directly affected by
the relief as would be granted in the writ petition, as a result of
quashing of the appointment orders made in their favour in
terms of the agreement reached between the Management and
the project affected persons dehors the Rehabilitation Policy of
1991. Even if those persons may not be necessary parties, by
no stretch of imagination, it can be suggested that they would
not be proper party, for the nature of relief, granted in the writ
petition.
The learned Single Judge also glossed over the crucial aspect
as to whether the appointments made in terms of agreement
with the affected persons on 20.02.2009 and 23.02.2009 was in
fact contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court dated
16.02.2009. The said decision of the Supreme Court, which has
been reproduced hitherto does not injunct or prohibit the
appellant Management from appointing persons on the basis of
the mutual agreement and more so when their appointment in
no way affected any aspirant and person eligible to be
appointed in terms of the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991. No
such person has come before the Court with that grievance.
Even the petitioner was not claiming to be appointed under the
Rehabilitation Policy of 1991 or that any eligible person being
denied of the opportunity of appointments as per the Policy of
1991 because of the appointment of persons pursuant to
agreement with the Management, but was merely interested in
quashing of the appointments made by the appellant pursuant
to the agreement between the appellant and the affected
families.
In our opinion, these crucial issues have been glossed over by
the learned Single Judge, for which, the appropriate course
would be to remit the writ petition to the file of the learned
Single Judge for reconsideration on its own merits and in
accordance with law.
As a result, we are inclined to quash and set aside the
impugned decision and send back the writ petition for
reconsideration.
There is additional reason why the matter should be remitted
back before the learned Single Judge. It is noticed that the
matter which was pending before the Supreme Court being SLP
(Civil) No.2915/2009 and connected cases questioning the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 12.11.2008
in Writ Petition No.13561/2005 and connected writ petitions
have been finally disposed of in terms of order dated
12.08.2014. The said order reads thus:-
"UPON hearing the counsel the court made the following
ORDER
Application for impleadment is rejected.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
It has been fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the petitioners would follow the policy set up
by the State of Madhya Pradesh with regard to giving
employment to the persons whose lands have been acquired.
In addition thereto, it has been submitted by him that even as
per the policy laid down in the Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Policy of Coal India Ltd., 2012, all the 899
persons will be given employment.
It has been further submitted by him that no land owner has
filed any appeal which is to be decided in accordance with
Section 14 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition &
Development) Act, 1957, and, therefore, the Tribunal has not
been constituted.
In view of the above facts stated by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, we see no reason to interfere
with the impugned order passed by the High Court. The
impugned order stands modified to the extent as submitted by
the learned counsel for the petitioners.
The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly."
In the context of this decision, further question may arise
whether the writ petitioner can succeed in persuading the
Court to grant relief in terms of prayer clause 7(ii). Inasmuch,
the Supreme Court has permitted the appellants to make
appointment also with reference to the Rehabilitation Policy of
2012 and not limited to Rehabilitation Policy of 1991. The
efficacy of the final decision of the Supreme Court, therefore,
also may have to be examined especially because the interim
order passed in the said proceedings on 16.02.2009 by the
Supreme Court has been subsumed in the subsequent final
order dated 12.08.2014. Accordingly, the reliefs as claimed by
the petitioner will have to be answered keeping in mind the said
decision as well.
Since all these aspects and other contentions available to the
parties will have to be considered threadbare and being intra
Court appeal, the appropriate course, in the interest of justice,
is, to relegate the parties before the learned Single Judge for
reconsideration of the writ petition afresh.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the writ
petition is restored to the file to be proceeded afresh without
being influenced by the observations made in the impugned
judgment (under appeal) or for that matter the present order
remitting the writ petition for reconsideration afresh. In other
words, all questions will have to be answered on its own merits
in accordance with law.
During the pendency of this appeal, intervention applications
have been filed by third parties. Even those intervention
applications are sent back before the learned Single Judge to
be heard along with the writ petition and deemed to have been
filed in the writ petition proceedings without requiring the
applicants to re-present the same application in those
proceedings.
The writ petitioner would be free to pray for leave to amend the
writ petition in the light of subsequent events, if so advised.
That application be considered by the learned Single Judge on
its own merits in accordance with law including the objection
regarding additional relief or amendment being barred by
limitation or laches, as may be advised, which request will be
considered on its own merits by the learned Single Judge.
Writ Appeal disposed of accordingly."
15. Therefore, it is evident that the Division Bench remanded the matter on the
specific questions to be decided by the learned single Judge.
16. Thereafter, W.P. No.7968/2009 was amended and 107 private persons were
impleaded therein and in similar manner, a number of private persons were
impleaded in W.P. No.11456/2009 as well. The said petitions have been decided
by common order dated 25.01.2018 taking the facts from W.P. No.7968/2009 and
learned Single Judge has held that there is a specific mode of consideration under
the M.P. Government R & R Policy, 1991, which was subsequently amended on
21.12.1995 and 31.08.1998 to the effect that land losers should be owner of the
land for 20 years and that they should be in possession also for at least last 20
years. It was held by learned Single Bench that Coal India Ltd. issued R & R
Policy in 2008 and appointments as per the said policy were to be made on 898
posts @ one employment for each two acres of land, as 1729 acres of land were
being acquired affecting 1804 land owners. The Single Bench held that initially
proposal for employment of 730 persons were sent vide Annexure P-7 and by
order dated 07.01.2008 (Annexure P-8) 303 appointments were approved in
accordance with M.P. Government R & R Policy, subject to fulfillment of the
conditions laid down in the said order. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 7968/2009
and 11456/2009 were declared eligible for appointment in Annexure P-7. The
M.P. Government R & R Policy was stated to be violated by the respondent
authorities of Coal India and SECL, which led to filing of W.P. Nos.11456/2009
and 7968/2009.
17. The Single Bench after noting the said facts decided the writ petition in the
light of directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court and directed that
appointments will be made in accordance with Coal India Policy of 2012 and
M.P. Government R & R Policy, 1991. The Single Bench further directed to
cancel the appointments, which are found to be contrary to M.P. Government R
& R Policy, 1991 and Coal India Policy, 2012 and directed that the appointments
will be made strictly in accordance with the said two policies and disposed of the
petition accordingly noting that the petition is being decided with consent of the
parties.
18. The review petition was filed against the said order inter-alia on the
ground that the Single Bench has directed to scrutinize the appointment of 516
persons, but those persons have not been impleaded in the writ petitions,
therefore, these persons are apprehending that their services may be terminated.
However, the review was rejected vide order dated 09.8.2018 on the ground that
unless clarification/modification of order dated 12.08.2014 is sought from the
Hon'ble Apex Court, no relief can be granted to the review petitioners and in
guise of review rehearing of the case is not permissible and there is no error
apparent on the face of the record in passing the impugned order that may call for
interference.
19. This is the factual background, which is leading to the filing of the present
batch of 95 cases.
20. Learned counsel for the appellants/the persons appointed under Coal India
R & R Policy, 2008 have vehemently argued before this Court that it is not in
dispute that in W.P. No.13561/2005 (PIL) the Division Bench of this Court has
directed to consider R & R benefits and compensate the employments to land
losers in accordance with M.P. Government R & R Policy, 1991 and further that
it is undisputed that the Supreme Court thereafter opened up another avenue vide
order dated 12.08.2014 to consider the appointments in terms of Coal India Ltd.
R & R Policy, 2012 also. It was also argued by learned counsel for the appellants
that as per judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Bank of Maharashtra vs.
Manoj Kumar Dehariya reported in 2010 (3) MPLJ 213, it has been held that in
cases of compassionate appointment, such appointment should be made on the
basis of policy, which is presently in vogue and not on the basis of policy, which
has become extinct. This was countered by learned counsel for original writ
petitioners that the policy, which is in force on the date of acquisition would be
applied, which is a determinate criterion and not a policy, which is based on
indeterminate criteria, i.e. the date of consideration.
21. It was further argued by learned counsel for the appellants that once the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that M.P. Government R & R Policy, 1991 so
also Coal India R & R Policy, 2012 have to be given effect to, then there is no
reason why the persons appointed under Coal India R & R Policy, 2008 may also
not be given benefit because they were appointed in terms of mutual agreement
between SECL and the land losers or the Gram Panchayat. Moreover, the
Supreme Court has not interfered in such appointments and did not hold that the
appointments made in terms of Coal India Policy R & R Policy, 2008 and mutual
agreement be set aside or cancelled.
22. Alternatively, it was also argued that once before the Supreme Court Coal
India Ltd. has given statement that 899 appointments have to be extended, then
the Coal India Ltd. should extend 899 appointments and these many
appointments have to be considered and at best the appointments will first have
to be considered as per M.P. Government R & R Policy, 1991 and Coal India R
& R Policy, 2012, but if the appointments fall short of 899, then for remaining
appointments the already appointed persons by the mutual agreement will stand
validated because it has been stand of Coal India Ltd. And SECL before the
Supreme Court that 899 appointments have to be given in the three villages in
question for land acquired to establish the coal mines.
23. To buttress this submission, learned counsel for the appellants have
heavily relied on Coal India Ltd. R & R Policy, 2008 so also the deliberations
between land losers and Coal Mine Management, which are brought on record as
Annexure A-9 and subsequent approval of the said scheme by SECL
management placed on record vide Annexure P-10. The consent letters obtained
from Gram Panchayat were also relied by learned counsel for the appellants.
24. It was also argued by learned counsel for the appellants that before the
Supreme Court, the affidavit which was filed by the SECL and Coal India Ltd.
did not indicate that Coal India R & R Policy, 2008 will not be followed because
by the affidavit filed by the SECL before the Supreme Court in another SLP
(Civil) No.7524/2009, it was stated by SECL that they would follow Coal India
R & R Policy, 2008 and Coal India R & R Policy, 2012 is not applicable.
25. In the other group of connected matters, which has arisen out of the
consequential action taken by DRRC in its meeting dated 08.08.2018, which is
filed as Annexure P-6 in W.P. No.18597/2020, the proceedings of DRRC have
been put to challenge on the ground that the affected persons, who are bound to
lose their lands were not heard and secondly that it was decided to follow
descending order by majority whereas earlier by agreement it was decided to
follow the process of clubbing/grouping of land and such change of modality
after 10 years of granting appointments is unsustainable.
26. Per contra, it is vehemently relied by the writ petitioners of W.P.
No.7968/2009 and 11456/2009 that the order passed by learned Single Judge in
the said petitions is fully justified, because the Supreme Court has categorically
held in SLP (Civil) No.2915/2009 that the M.P. Government R & R Policy, 1991
and Coal India Ltd. R & R Policy, 2012 would be followed, hence, there is no
question to follow Coal India R & R Policy, 2008, because the Supreme Court
has not given stamp of approval to follow such policy. It is further argued that
M.P. Government R & R Policy, 1991 was formulated with a view to give
maximum appointments to persons, who are original residents of the village
concerned, whereas Coal India Ltd. R & R Policy, 2008 gave such benefits also
to those persons, who have purchased the land in recent times and such persons
should not have procured employment. It is further argued that the descending
order as laid down in Coal India R & R Policy, 2012 was properly followed by
the DRRC, because as per majority of land losers, such modality was fixed in
place of clubbing/pooling of land in groups. Therefore, the appellants, who are
among the 516 appointees are not entitled to claim any relief from this Court,
because they cannot get any relief by adversely affecting the interest of those
persons, who are eligible as per M.P. Government R & R Policy, 1991 and Coal
India R & R Policy, 2012.
27. Heard.
28. In the present case, the sole dispute that arises between the parties is that
there are three R & R Schemes, i.e. M.P. Government R & R Policy, 1991, Coal
India R & R Policy, 2012 and Coal India R & R Policy, 2012. A Division Bench
of this Court in W.P. No.13561/2005 had directed to grant R & R benefits as per
M.P. Policy of 1991, but thereafter when the said order put to challenge before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court by SECL, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the
undertaking of SECL directed that the R & R Policy of Coal India Ltd. of the
year 2012 would also be pressed into service to grant employments to land
losers.
29. After the said decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the Division Bench
remanded the matter back to the Single Bench to decide W.P. Nos.7968/2009 and
11456/2009 afresh and formulated certain points. The Division Bench in the said
earlier order held that the Single Bench has to re-decide the matter by
considering certain preliminary submissions put forth by those persons, who
were opposing the said two writ petitions. First one was that the writ petitioners
were not seeking any employment as per M.P. R & R Policy, 1991 for
themselves. The second preliminary objection, which was to be considered is that
whether without challenging the agreement entered into management and
concerned affected persons though de-hors the M.P. Government R & R Policy,
1991 the appointments made thereunder could be questioned by the writ
petitioners, who were not personally affected thereby. Third issue was non-
joinder of the affected persons and further while remanding the matter to the
Single Bench, the Division Bench had directed to consider the affect of the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.2915/2009 decided on
12.08.2014 also.
30. In terms of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, there remains no
doubt that the employments have to be first granted as per the M.P. Government
R & R Policy, 1991, which was the decision rendered by the Division Bench of
this Court in W.P. No.13561/2005 decided as far back as on 12.11.2008. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court additionally left it open for the Coal India Ltd. to make
899 employments available to land losers and to follow Coal India Ltd. R & R
Policy, 2012.
31. The issue raised in the present appeal is that certain employments were
made in terms of mutual agreements between the land losers and SECL, which is
subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. during the year 2009-10 in terms of Coal India Ltd.
R & R Policy, 2008. On one hand it was argued by the appellants that the
Supreme Court did not consider either the CIL R & R Policy, 2008 or the
agreement between SECL and the land losers and did not comment anything on
that and therefore, these appointments cannot be interfered with on the strength
of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court. On the other hand, it was
vehemently argued that since the Supreme Court has left open only two options,
i.e. firstly M.P. Government R & R Policy, 1991 and secondly Coal India Ltd. R
& R Policy, 2012, therefore, all appointments de-hors the said two policies have
to be set at naught.
32. The consequential proceedings of DRRC in terms of the aforesaid order of
learned Single Judge dated 25.01.2018 passed in W.P. No.7968/2009 and
11456/2009 has also been put to challenge on the ground that under the CIL R &
R Policy, 2012 two modalities are laid down, i.e. pooling/clubbing of land in
groups and secondly by descending order of land holdings. The modality of
pooling/clubbing of land could not be changed to descending order of land
holding by majority, more so when the persons whose appointments were likely
to be affected adversely were not put to notice by the DRRC and were not heard,
though it is not disputed that the appointees are the kith and kin of land losers,
who have taken a particular decision by majority during the meeting of DRCC.
33. Upon perusal of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court therein remains
no iota of doubt that what is to be followed is M.P. R & R Policy, 1991 and
additionally, what is to be followed is CIL R & R Policy, 2012. Therefore, the
natural consequence would be that all the eligible persons, who are found eligible
as per M.P. R & R Policy, 1991 would be given appointment and thereafter, all
the eligible persons, who are appointed under 2012 R & R Policy of CIL would
also be given appointment and the decision taken by DRRC to follow the
modality of descending order, which is by majority of land losers cannot be
faulted with only on the ground that the affected employees were not heard,
because the affected employees are kith and kin of the land losers, who have
taken a particular decision by majority in the meeting of DRRC.
34. However, we note that the learned Single Judge has not taken into
consideration the two issues, which had been directed to be taken into
consideration by the Division Bench in its remand order dated 29.04.2015 that
the affected persons, who have taken employments, have not been impleaded and
secondly, the persons who have been appointed by mutual agreement between
SECL and land losers whether could be adversely affected when neither the
agreement is put to challenge nor it has been placed on record that any person,
who was eligible to be appointed in terms of M.P. R & R Policy, 1991, could not
be appointed because SECL entered into mutual agreement with some of the land
losers and provided them employment. This issue, we note, has not been taken
into consideration by the Single Bench at all.
35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has left two choices open for the SECL,
which order has been passed in an S.L.P., which was against the direction issued
by this Court in W.P. No.13561/2005, whereby this Court had directed to follow
M.P. R & R Policy, 1991. The mutual agreements executed between the SECL
and land losers, whereby CIL R & R Policy, 2008 was followed is something,
which took place subsequent to the order passed in W.P. No.13561/2005 and it
appears that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had no occasion to deal with the validity
of such mutual agreements and employments granted in terms of the said mutual
agreements, and cannot be said to have been invalidated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
36. However, a balance has to be struck between the rights accrued to the land
losers in terms of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court as per M.P. R & R
Policy, 1991 and CIL R & R Policy, 2012 so also those persons, who have been
given employments as per mutual agreement by following CIL R & R Policy,
2008. It is not in dispute that total 899 employments have to be given as
undertaken by the SECL before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
37. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that total 899 employments
have to be given for which firstly consideration is to be made for all eligible
persons as per M.P. R & R Policy, 1991 and thereafter as per CIL R & R Policy,
2012 in terms of descending order of land holding as agreed in DRRC meeting,
which has been placed on record, which we uphold to that extent.
38. However, at the same time, since the appointments granted by way of
mutual agreement to various land losers in terms of CIL R & R Policy, 2008 have
not been interfered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court nor such agreements by
mutual consent has been held illegal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore,
we hold that after extending appointments to all the eligible persons under M.P.
R & R Policy, 1991 and CIL R & R Policy, 2012, the persons appointed under
CIL R & R Policy, 2008 by way of mutual agreement shall be adjusted subject to
maximum limit of 899 employments, which have been undertaken to be granted
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the SECL. These persons appointed under
CIL R&R Policy 2008 have put in almost 16 years of service till date and subject
to ceiling of maximum 899 employments, employments to these persons
appointed by mutual agreements between SECL and land losers will stand
validated because the undertaking of SECL before the Supreme Court to grant
899 employments in total, impliedly saves the remaining appointees subject to
maximum limit of 899 after all persons are considered and given employment
under the M.P. R & R Policy, 1991 and CIL R & R Policy, 2012 (in descending
order), because it will not affect rights of any of the residents/land losers of these
villages who are entitled to be appointed in terms of Govt. of M.P. R&R Policy
1991 as also CIL R & R Policy, 2012.
39. Therefore, first the respondents SECL and DRRC of the State Government
shall examine the claims of remaining eligible persons under State of MP R&R
Policy 1991 and CIL R&R Policy 2012 and all the remaining eligible persons
under these two policies be given employment. This exercise be completed
within one month of this order.
40. If after giving employment as per M.P. R & R Policy, 1991 and CIL R & R
Policy, 2012 (in descending order), any posts are left vacant out of 899
employments, then on those remaining posts, the appointees under mutual
agreement under CIL R&R policy 2008 shall be adjusted. If less posts than
number of persons appointed under mutual agreement vide CIL R & R Policy,
2008 remain available, then in that event the persons given appointment under
CIL R & R Policy, 2008 by mutual agreement who are being adjusted against
remaining posts subject to maximum of 899 total employments, shall be adjusted
in descending order of quantum of holding of land. If any appointee is in excess
of 899 employments, then before giving any adverse finding or passing any
adverse order, it will be obligatory for the DRRC and/or the SECL to hear such
appointee.
41. The matter would now go back to the DRRC of the respondents to carry
out such exercise, which will be undertaken within two months from the date of
production of copy of this order. The termination orders of all the persons
appointed under CIL R&R Policy 2008 are set aside, with liberty to issue fresh
orders as an outcome of the said exercise, that too only for persons in excess of
899 employments.
42. It is made clear that the SECL will be at liberty to terminate the
unadjusted/excess appointees, however, if the SECL wishes to save the excess
employees too (in excess of 899 employments) looking to their long continuation
in service, either by creating super-numerary posts or against other vacancies or
in any other manner known to law, then this order shall not come in the way.
43. In the above terms, all these writ appeals and writ petitions are Disposed
of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) (VIVEK JAIN)
CHIF JUSTICE JUDGE
MISHRA
