Kamla v. South Eastern Coalfield Limited,

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3353 of 2019 Ku. Pinki D/o Mani Ram Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Baraoud, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Through Managing Director, Office At Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. General Manager, South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Raigarh Area, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. In Charge Officer (Revenue ) South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Raigarh Area, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

4. Collector, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents WPS No. 3359 of 2019 Kamla D/o Suklal Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Baraoud, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Through Managing Director, Office At Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. General Manger, South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Raigarh Area, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

3. In Charge Officer (Revenue ) South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Raigarh Area, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

4. Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent

For Petitioner :

Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate For Respondent-SECL :

Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 06/05/2019

1. The grounds and facts raised by the petitioners in these two writ petitions being common, both these writ petitions are being disposed off by this common order.

2. The limited grievance which the petitioners has raised in the present writ petition is that the land belonging to the petitioner's father was acquired by the respondents and under the rehabilitation scheme then prevailing, employment also was to be provided against the land which is acquired.

3. According to the petitioners in spite of repeated correspondences being made with the respondent authorities till date their claim for employment against the scheme for rehabilitation for the land acquired has not been finalized by the department.

4. Given the limited grievance that the petitioners has, let respondent No. 2 scrutinize the claim of the petitioners for grant of employment against the land belonging to the petitioner's family which was acquired and an appropriate decision be taken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioners to apprise the respondent No. 2 so far as the order passed by this Court is concerned and the petitioners also shall have the liberty of providing fresh details of the entire property belonging to the petitioners which has been acquired and other necessary details enabling them to get employment under the rehabilitation scheme.

5. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit