ORDER
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners for a direction on the respondents to consider their cases for appointment in the light of Land Losers Scheme (Scheme for rehabilitation of displaced persons), their ancestral land (s) having been acquired in favour of the Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro. In support of such prayer, petitioners have relied on a Division Bench’s decision of this Court dated 7th April 1998, rendered in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Ganesh Mandal and Ors. LPA No. 161 of 1996 (R).
2. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents have relied on one of the paragraphs of a judgment, rendered by this Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro v. Jamuna Prasad Mahto and Ors. , wherein, the respondents have brought to the notice of the Division Bench the fact that against 6000 posts for land losers (displaced persons), already 15000 appointments have been made. However, it appears that the Court has not given any finding in this regard and it is informed that the said judgment has been challenged by Jamuna Prasad Mahto and others. Before the Supreme Court, which is pending under consideration.
3. As per the Land Losers Scheme (Scheme for rehabilitation of displaced persons), in lieu of acquisition of certain land, the land loser (displaced person) is not only entitled for compensation but also employment to one of the family members, It is not clear as to how it is dependent on the vacancies. In normal course, appointment is dependent on vacancy but so far as appointment of land loser (displaced person) is concerned, as per the scheme, it is not dependent on the vacancy rather it is dependent on area of the land, acquired in favour of the Company. If less land is acquired, there will be corresponding less appointment of land losers (displaced persons) but if large area of the land is acquired, there shall be corresponding large number of appointment. If the scheme permits and ensures compensation as well as employment to a member of displaced person’s family, the Company, prima facie, cannot refuse to give employment on the ground of payment of compensation.
4. In the present case, the following facts are required to be determined before the claim of the petitioners ;
(i) Whether any scheme for appointment of land loser (displaced person) is existing?
(ii) Whether the petitioners fall within the definition of the member of a family of displaced persons under the said scheme? And
(iii) Whether the petitioners are otherwise eligible and entitled for appointments as per the said scheme?
5. As the aforesaid matter requires determination by the authorities at first instance, the case is remitted with a direction to the respondents to decide the aforesaid questions and communicate the decision within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If there is any ban on appointment, the respondents will make it clear as to which authority has issued such order and how the scheme can be given effect to, if the land of one or other person has already been acquired, prior to such ban.
6. However, if any person has already been given appointment in lieu of acquisition of land in question, it will be open to the respondents to reject the claim of such petitioner(s), giving reference of the per-sons(s), so appointed, and the letter(s) and date(s), by which such person(s) was/were appointed.
The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.
