IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP ( S ) No. 2612 of 2005
Mrs John Maria and Mrs Merry Rose Ekka …. Petitioners
Versus
Central Coalfields Limited and others ….. Respondents
Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan
For the respondents : A. Sen.
02.09. 2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for
direction upon the respondents to reinstate them in service on the ground
of being displaced from their land and they are land losers.
From the rival submissions, it appears that after
acknowledging the petitioners of being owners of the land which was
acquired by CCL and in pursuance of the scheme for payment of
compensation, petitioners were given employment under the respondents,
but later, a dispute arose regarding their claim of their being owners of the
land and they were terminated from service by the respondent CCL.
Against the order of terminations, the petitioners had filed writ petition
before this Court in CWJC No. 1980 of 1999R which was disposed of by
order dated 8.2.2000 with direction to the respondents to consider the
petitioners’ claim and pass a reasoned order. Upon consideration, when
the respondents rejected petitioner’s claim, another writ petition No. 1814
of 2000 was filed by the petitioners.
After considering the rival submissions, this court
disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioners to approach the civil
court for obtaining a declaration of their right over the disputed land.
In compliance of the order, the petitioner filed a title
suit before the Sub Judge 1, Ranchi in which the respondent CCL and the
State Government were impleaded as defendants. The suit was decreed by
the Sub Judge by judgment and order dated 17.11.2003 in which the right
title and interest of the petitioners over the disputed land was declared.
Being armed with such decree in their favour, the petitioners, again
approached the respondent CCL claiming their reinstatement in service,
but no order has been passed despite repeated representations and notice
served upon the authorities and hence the present writ petition.
Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondents
informs that against the judgment and decree passed in the title suit, the
State Government had filed an appeal before the appellate authority and
the same is pending.
Sri Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner,
however informs that as per information received, the appeal preferred by
the State Government has been dismissed, though for default. Learned
counsel has produced a copy of the order. Learned counsel for the
respondents CCL is not able to inform as to whether any further step was
taken on behalf of the State Government after dismissal of the Title Appeal
No.43 of 2004 by order passed on 1.2.2006 by the learned appellate court
below.
In the light of the above facts, inference which may
reasonably be drawn is that the right and title of the petitioner over the
disputed land has been declared by the court below and such declaration
as on today, has not been overruled or set aside.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, the
concerned authorities of the respondents are directed to consider the claim
of petitioners and take an appropriate decision by passing a reasoned and
speaking order and communicate such decision effectively to the petitioner
within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order.
With the above observations, this application is
disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the
respondents.
Ambastha/ (DGR Patnaik, J.