AMAL GOPE v. BHARAT COOKING COAL LIMITED THROUGH THE CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR
WPC/3461/2018 · 2025-06-11
Deepak Roshan
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 19563 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 19563 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:JHHC:15336 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3461 of 2018
Amal Gope, aged about 31 years, S/O Sri Sukhlal Gope, R/O Village- Sidpoki, P.O- Nudkhurkee, P.S- Baghmara, District- Dhanbad At Present R/O Village- Bakaspura, P.O-Rathtand, P.S- Baghmara, District- Dhanbad
... … Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. Bharat Cooking Coal Limited through the Chief Managing Director, Koyala Bhawan, P.O & P.S-Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad.
2. The Chief General Manager, Bharat Cooking Coal Limited, Koyala Bhawan, P.O & P.S- Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad.
3. The General Manager (Personnel), Block-II Area, Bharat Cooking Coal Limited, Koyala Bhawan, P.O & P.S-Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad.
4. The Personnel Manager, Block-II Area, Koyala Bhawan, P.O & P.S- Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad.
5. The Area Personnel Manager, Block-II Area, P.O-Nadkhurkee, P.S- Baghmara, District- Dhanbad.
6. The Estate Officer, Block-II Area, PO-Nadkhurkee, PS-Baghmara, District-Dhanbad
… … Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s)
: Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate
-------- 07/Dated: 11th June 2025
The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside of the reasoned
order dated 19.12.2017; whereby the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for employment under land looser scheme/package deal and in terms of the decision taken on 29.08.1996 at the time of acquisition of land of grandfather of the petitioner at village-Sidhpokee.
2.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land of the grandfather of the petitioner, namely, late Subedar Gope was acquired by the respondent-coal company for mining purposes and as per the scheme they were supposed to give employment. Learned counsel further draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-2 and submits that the respondents have admitted to give employment under the land looser scheme in terms of decision taken on 29.08.1996 which is evident from
2025:JHHC:15336 2
Annexure-2.
Thereafter, when the employment was not provided to this petitioner after attaining the age of 18 years then he made several representations through Union (Karmchari Sangh) and ultimately, he was constrained to file a writ application being WP(S) No. 5362 of 2014 before this Court in the year 2014. This Court after considering the submission
directed the respondent-BCCL to consider the representation dated 19.11.2010 and thereafter a reasoned order has been passed.
Learned counsel contended that when the respondents have admitted that they will provide employment after eights years then they are having no right to refuse the same and they are duty bound to provide the employment as they have already acquired the land for mining purpose and the grounds taken in the reasoned order is non-Est in the eye law because the stand of the Management is that it waited for five years after the petitioner attained the age of 18 years and then provided the employment to other co-parceners of the same family.
He further referred to several representations given to the Management through Union. Relying upon such representation and also Annexure-2 wherein a noting has been given by the coal company to provide the employment in lieu of acquisition of land, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing of the reasoned order dated 19.12.2017.
3.
Learned counsel for the respondents relying upon the counter affidavit submits that the petitioner has not applied for employment on attaining the age of 18 years and as a matter of fact the Management has waited for more than five years. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that BCCL has acquired only 0.78 acres of land out of 2.34 acres of late Subedar Gope including the house in the year 1993 and against the said land and the house, the Management has already provided employment to the five numbers of dependent of late Subedar Gope. As such, there is no error in the reasoned order. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
2025:JHHC:15336 3
through the documents available on record, it appears that the father of the petitioner made a representation before the respondent-authority which was duly received by the respondent-authority in the month of August 1996 wherein there is a noting that since the petitioner at that time was aged about only 9 years and 8 months therefore, after getting the medical expert advice they have taken a decision to give appointment to the petitioner after he attains 18 years of age. From the said letter, it transpires that the petitioner attains its age of majority in the year 2005; thereafter, there is no document to suggest that the petitioner has immediately applied before the respondent- authority for employment. Admittedly, there are several representations given to the Management and all is of the year 2010-11 but there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner has made an application after attaining his age of 18 years. After perusing the impugned order, it is clear that the petitioner had not applied for employment on attaining the age of 18 years and the Management after waiting for more than five years surrendered the post to the Headquarter-BCCL for the gainful use. For brevity, relevant portion of the impugned order is quoted hereinbelow:
“Sri Amal Gope has not applied for employment on attaining the age of 18 years. The management after waiting for more than 5 years after attainment of age of 18 years of Sri Amal Gope, the sanctioned package post past commitments in the village Sidpokee was surrendered to the Head Quarter BCCL by the management of Block-II Area for the gainful use.”
5.
Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the documents available on record, I do not find any error in the impugned
order which can be interfered with. Accordingly, no relief can be granted to this petitioner.
6.
Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed.
7.
Pending I.As, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amit