SECL must consider land-oustee’s employment claim under applicable policy after due verification.

The petitioner claimed employment from South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (“SECL”) in lieu of land acquired by the Central Government for SECL under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act.

Following verification by the State Government, SECL issued a public notice dated 14 March 2023 inviting objections from the general public; the petitioner’s name appeared at Serial No. 5 in that notice.

An Additional Collector had also communicated the petitioner’s employment claim to the General Manager, SECL, Gevra Area.

The petitioner therefore filed the writ petition seeking a direction for grant of employment as a family member of the land oustee.

During the hearing, SECL stated that it had no objection to consideration of a fresh representation in accordance with the relevant documents and SECL policy.

Whether the petitioner’s claim for employment in lieu of land acquired for SECL was required to be considered by the competent SECL authority in light of the communications, public notice, and applicable policy?

Whether the writ petition could be disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit a representation and requiring SECL to decide it after verification within a stipulated period?

The Court applied the statutory and administrative framework governing acquisition of coal-bearing land under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, together with the applicable SECL policy concerning employment to eligible land oustees and their family members.

The Court also applied the administrative-law principle that where a claimant’s representation is supported by relevant official communications and appears in an official public notice, the competent authority must consider the claim in accordance with law, after due verification, without the writ court itself determining the claimant’s final eligibility.

The Court noted that Annexure P/1 contained the Additional Collector’s communication regarding the petitioner’s claim, while Annexure P/2, SECL’s public notice, included the petitioner’s name at Serial No. 5.

These materials justified directing the petitioner to approach the competent SECL authority with a complete representation and supporting documents.

Since SECL expressly agreed to consider the representation under Annexures P/1 and P/2 and the applicable policy, the Court refrained from granting employment directly and instead required Respondent No. 3 to verify the petitioner’s candidature and decide the claim in accordance with the governing framework.

If submitted within that period, Respondent No. 3 was directed to consider and decide the representation after due verification, in accordance with Annexures P/1 and P/2 and the applicable SECL policy, and to pass an appropriate order regarding grant of employment within two months from receipt of the representation.

The Court did not itself declare the petitioner entitled to employment; it directed consideration of his claim by the competent authority.