1 / 6 2025:CGHC:10017 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1122 of 2025 1 - Sandeep Kumar S/o. Late Shri Shyam Lal Aged About 32 Years R/o. Village Budbud, Tehsil Pali, District Korba (CG) --- Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Office At Seepat Raod, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Korba Area, Korba (C.G.) 3 - Sub Area Manager Saraipali Open Cast Mines Project, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Korba (C.G.) 4 - Collector Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) with WPC No. 1123 of 2025 1 - Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Amrit Lal Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Budbud, Tehsil Pali, District Korba (C.G.) --Petitioner(s) 2 / 6 Versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Office At Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Korba Area, Korba (C.G.) 3 - Sub Area Manager, Saraipali Open Cast Mines Project, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Korba (C.G.) 4 - Collector, Korba District- Korba, (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) with WPC No. 1130 of 2025 1 - Smt Uma Bai W/o Shri Shyam Lal Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Budbud Tehsil Pali District - Korba (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director Office At Seepat Raod Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Korba Area Korba (C.G.) 3 - Sub Area Manager, Saraipali Open Cast Mines Project South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Korba (C.G.) 4 – Collector, Korba District - Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) 3 / 6 For Petitioners : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate For Respondents/ SECL : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Mr. Mayur Khandelwal and Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyers (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 28/02/2025 1. Since all the above writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The State Government had initiated land acquisition proceedings in the year 2005 for the 'Saraipali Open Cast Project of the respondent/Sub Area Manager, Saralpali, Open Cast Mining Project, SECL, Korba. The award of said acquisition proceedings was passed on 06.09.2007 in Land Acquisition Proceeding Case No. 10A/82/2004-05. There were a total of 856 land oustees. It was agreed by the SECL to provide employment to one of the family members of each land oustee as per the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991 issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. After the passing of the award, compensation was paid to the land custees by SECL, but employment was offered according to the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012 and not according to the Policy of 1991, which was prevalent at the time of land acquisition. According to the Policy of 2012, the land oustees having land less than 2 acres would not be entitled to get employment. The applications/representations of some of the petitioners have been rejected by the SECL authorities. The petitioners have filed these petitions seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to provide employment according to the 4 / 6 Rehabilitation Policy of 1991, which was in existence at the time of land acquisition. There is a prayer by some of the petitioners to quash the orders passed by the SECL authorities, whereby their claims have been rejected. 3. Mr. Shishir Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra. He would contend that a similar issue was raised in the mater of Pyarelal vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Others and connected matters passed in WPC No 3076 of 2016, dated 11-09-2017, and the coordinate bench of this Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for rehabilitation/employment strictly in accordance with the Policy on the date of acquisition of their lands within 45 days. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the SECL would oppose. He would submit that the petitioners have no right to claim employment according to the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991. They would further submit that some of the petitioners are not original land oustees. He would also submit that the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012, provides that if any of the land oustee has less than 2 acres of land, he would not be entitled to get employment. He would further contend that it would not possible for the SECL to provide employment to each and every affected family. He would also contend that the full and final compensation has already been paid to the land oustees. He would argue that these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 5 / 6 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. In the matter of Pyarelal (supra), a similar issue was raised and the coordinate Bench in Para-65 of its judgment directed the SECL to provide employment strictly in accordance with the Rehabilitation Policy applicable on the date of acquisitions of land within 45 days. 7. In the present case, the proceedings with regard to land acquisition were initiated in the year 2005 and the award was passed on 06.09.2007 and at that time, the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991 was in force. The Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012 was floated in the year 2012 and certainly, it would not attract the cases of the petitioners. 8. In the matter of Pyarelal (supra), the coordinate Bench of this Court in Para-65 held as under:- “65. Right of the land losers to get employment as per the rehabilitation policy is extremely important right and that has to be considered in accordance with law and in accordance with the policy in force on the date of acquisition of their land and subsequent change in policy will not take away their accrued right, if any, that has accrued to them by acquisition of their lands. Thus, the benefit of rehabilitation and employment to land oustee is logical corollary of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and denial of employment is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India as well as Article 21. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for rehabilitation/employment strictly in accordance with the policy applicable on the date of acquisition of their land i.e. the date of acquisition and such consideration should be made by SECL within 45 days from the date of production of a copy of this order.” 6 / 6 9. A specific query was made from the counsel appearing for SECL as to whether the order passed in the matter of Pyarelal (supra) has been assailed before the Superior Court or not. The learned counsel fairly submitted that the order dated 11.09.2017 has not been challenged and thus, it attained finality. 10. In the matter of Pyarelal (supra), is categorically observed that the benefit of rehabilitation and employment to land oustee is logical corollary of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and denial of employment is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India as well as Article 21 and the Policy applicable on the date of acquisition of the land would be applicable, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the respondent authorities should consider the claim of the petitioners strictly in light of the observations made in the matter of Pyarelal (supra). The orders, if any, passed against any of the petitioners by the SECL are hereby quashed. The SECL/respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by verifying whether the petitioners have received the compensation amount in lieu of employment or not. 11. Consequently, all the above-captioned petitions are disposed of. No Cost(s). Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar