Smt. Geeta Bai v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2699 of 2019

1. Smt. Geeta Bai W/o Mangeram Agrawal Aged About 66 Years R/o Village - Chhal, Tehsil - Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

2. Akshay Agrawal S/o Mangeram Agrawal Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Chhal, Tehsil Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Collector, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

3. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Coal, New Delhi., District : New Delhi, Delhi

4. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Chairman - Cum - Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

5. Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raigarh Areal, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

6. Sub Area Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited Chhal Sub Area, Raigarh Area, District Raigarh Chhattigarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For State :

Mr. Sameer Behar, PL For Respondent :

Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpari, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 10/04/2019

1. The relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition is for appropriate direction to the respondent state authorities to finalise the

certification of the claim for employment in respect of those persons whose land has been acquired for mining purpose and employment has to be provided by the respondent No. 4.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the land belonging to the petitioner have been acquired in the year 2013 and till date they have not been given the employment as per the rehabilitation scheme that was prevailing. The correspondence show that the matter is yet to be finalized at the collector level as is evident from the Annexure (P-1) dated 20/08/2018.

3. Given the facts, let respondent No. 2 scrutinise the claim of the petitioner in accordance with the relevant rehabilitation scheme and the understanding between the State Government and respondent No. 4 company and an appropriate decision whether the petitioner would be entitled for the employment or not be taken at the earliest and thereafter appropriate orders/instructions be passed in this regard to respondent No. 4 for necessary compliance.

4. It is expected that respondent No. 2 shall conduct verification part and decide the matter so far as claim of the petitioner is concerned at the earliest preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5. Needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion so far as the entitlement of the petitioner is concerned, Collector would be free to decide the matter purely in accordance with law. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit