Prahlad Chandra Nath Vs. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1172878
CourtGuwahati High Court
Decided OnFeb-18-2014
Case NumberWrit Petition (C) No. 2017 of 2008
JudgeHRISHIKESH ROY
AppellantPrahlad Chandra Nath
RespondentThe Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and Others
Excerpt:
1. heard mr. ak bora, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. the respondent nos.1 and 2 are represented by mr. sn sarma, the learned sr. counsel. the government advocate mr. dj dutta appears for the deputy commissioner, kamrup (respondent no.3). 2. the indian oil corporation limited (aod) (hereinafter referred to as the ioc) established an lpg bottling plant at north guwahati on land acquired through the collector in the year 1994. claiming to belong to a land losers family, the present case is filed for considering petitioners appointment as a shramik in the bottling plant. the petitioner refers to the written understanding of the ioc officials with the land losers association to project that as an affected land owner, he has a preferential right of appointment in the lpg bottling plant. 3. mr. ak bora, the learned counsel submits that when the petitioners family land was acquired for the lpg plant, minimal acquisition compensation was received by the land owner and accordingly they should be additionally compensated by way of preferential appointment, in the available jobs of the lpg plant. 4. for the ioc, mr. sn sarma, the learned sr. counsel, however submits that the land owners received adequate compensation by way of market value, solatium and interest under the land acquisition act, 1894 and therefore it cannot be said that the land owners did not receive due compensation for the acquired land. 5. as regards the claim for a preferential appointment, the sr. counsel refers to paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed on 24.09.2008 to project that compulsory employment is not envisaged for the land losers and all that is provided is that while undertaking recruitment for the notified vacancies in the bottling plant, other things being equal, preference will be given for the family members of the land losers subject to fulfilling of the prescribed qualification and criterion and the names of the aspirant being sponsored by the local employment exchange against the notified vacancies. 6. referring to the letter dated 30.03.1993 (annexure-c) of the land acquisition officer, guwahati addressed to the administrative officer of the assam oil company, the sr. counsel submits that in the appended list, names of 32 land losers is reflected but the petitioners name is not listed amongst those whose lands were subjected to acquisition. 7. what can be culled out from the written understanding (annexure-b) reached by the ioc with the land losers association is that whenever need for employment arises, subject to the names of the land losers being sponsored by the local employment exchange, their names will be considered in the recruitment process. this therefore pre-supposes that an aspirant must be identified as one whose land was acquired for establishment of the lpg bottling plant. 8. since the petitioners name is missing from the list of land losers furnished on 30.03.1993 by the land acquisition officer, guwahati, mr. ak bora, the learned counsel submits that this shouldnt deprive the petitioner from being considered for preferential appointment. in support of this contention, the counsel cites k.i. shephard vs. union of india reported in air 1988 sc 686. this was a case on amalgamation of private banks with nationalized banks under section 45 of the banking regulation act, 1949. some of the employees of the private banks were excluded and their services were not taken over by the transferee banks. accordingly few of the excluded employees approached the court. in the context of the case, the supreme court opined that the transferee banks should consider the cases of all the excluded employees and there should be no distinction between those, who did not go the court and those who approached court for redressal. 9. but in the case in hand, it is nobodys case that preferential consideration can be claimed by anyone other than a member of a land losers family. but the petitioners name is not amongst the 32 names identified by the land acquisition officer, guwahati. but whether he is a land loser or not is a matter of verification and on this aspect the courts comment is unwarranted in the absence of any cogent material to reach any conclusion either way. 10. however considering the nature of the prayer, the court deems it necessary to observe that whenever recruitment exercise is undertaken in the lpg bottling plant, if the petitioners name as a land loser is forwarded by the local employment exchange, it should receive preferential consideration (subject to other things being equal), in the recruitment exercise. but compulsory employment cant be claimed by anyone just because his land was acquired for establishment of the lpg bottling plant at north guwahati. 11. with the above observation, the case stands disposed of without any order on cost.
Judgment:

1. Heard Mr. AK Bora, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are represented by Mr. SN Sarma, the learned Sr. Counsel. The Government Advocate Mr. DJ Dutta appears for the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Respondent No.3).

2. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited (AOD) (hereinafter referred to as the IOC) established an LPG Bottling Plant at North Guwahati on land acquired through the Collector in the year 1994. Claiming to belong to a land losers family, the present case is filed for considering petitioners appointment as a Shramik in the Bottling Plant. The petitioner refers to the written understanding of the IOC officials with the Land Losers Association to project that as an affected land owner, he has a preferential right of appointment in the LPG Bottling Plant.

3. Mr. AK Bora, the learned counsel submits that when the petitioners family land was acquired for the LPG Plant, minimal acquisition compensation was received by the land owner and accordingly they should be additionally compensated by way of preferential appointment, in the available jobs of the LPG plant.

4. For the IOC, MR. SN Sarma, the learned Sr. Counsel, however submits that the land owners received adequate compensation by way of market value, solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and therefore it cannot be said that the land owners did not receive due compensation for the acquired land.

5. As regards the claim for a preferential appointment, the Sr. Counsel refers to paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed on 24.09.2008 to project that compulsory employment is not envisaged for the land losers and all that is provided is that while undertaking recruitment for the notified vacancies in the bottling plant, other things being equal, preference will be given for the family members of the land losers subject to fulfilling of the prescribed qualification and criterion and the names of the aspirant being sponsored by the local employment exchange against the notified vacancies.

6. Referring to the letter dated 30.03.1993 (Annexure-C) of the Land Acquisition Officer, Guwahati addressed to the Administrative Officer of the Assam Oil Company, the Sr. Counsel submits that in the appended list, names of 32 land losers is reflected but the petitioners name is not listed amongst those whose lands were subjected to acquisition.

7. What can be culled out from the written understanding (Annexure-B) reached by the IOC with the Land Losers Association is that whenever need for employment arises, subject to the names of the land losers being sponsored by the local employment exchange, their names will be considered in the recruitment process. This therefore pre-supposes that an aspirant must be identified as one whose land was acquired for establishment of the LPG Bottling Plant.

8. Since the petitioners name is missing from the list of land losers furnished on 30.03.1993 by the Land Acquisition Officer, Guwahati, Mr. AK Bora, the learned counsel submits that this shouldnt deprive the petitioner from being considered for preferential appointment. In support of this contention, the counsel cites K.I. Shephard Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1988 SC 686. This was a case on amalgamation of private banks with nationalized banks under Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Some of the employees of the private banks were excluded and their services were not taken over by the transferee banks. Accordingly few of the excluded employees approached the Court. In the context of the case, the Supreme Court opined that the transferee banks should consider the cases of all the excluded employees and there should be no distinction between those, who did not go the court and those who approached Court for redressal.

9. But in the case in hand, it is nobodys case that preferential consideration can be claimed by anyone other than a member of a land losers family. But the petitioners name is not amongst the 32 names identified by the Land Acquisition Officer, Guwahati. But whether he is a land loser or not is a matter of verification and on this aspect the courts comment is unwarranted in the absence of any cogent material to reach any conclusion either way.

10. However considering the nature of the prayer, the court deems it necessary to observe that whenever recruitment exercise is undertaken in the LPG bottling plant, if the petitioners name as a land loser is forwarded by the local employment exchange, it should receive preferential consideration (subject to other things being equal), in the recruitment exercise. But compulsory employment cant be claimed by anyone just because his land was acquired for establishment of the LPG bottling plant at North Guwahati.

11. With the above observation, the case stands disposed of without any order on cost.