SECL must decide the land-acquisition employment claim within 45 days, without determining its merits.

The petitioner claimed employment from South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (SECL) in lieu of land acquired for the Kusmunda project.

The acquired land, bearing Khasra No. 22/18, measuring 0.05 acre at Village Jharhajail, District Korba, originally belonged to the petitioner’s grandfather and was subsequently mutated in the name of her mother, Sarojni.

The petitioner submitted her nomination for employment, supported by the consent of family members, a family tree, and an affidavit by her mother nominating her for employment.

She asserted that she had also submitted the necessary form during a joint camp conducted by the State authorities and SECL in 2016, but no decision was taken on her claim despite repeated requests.

Invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, she sought employment or, alternatively, a direction to SECL to decide her claim in accordance with the applicable rehabilitation policy.

SECL and the State respondents did not object to the limited prayer for consideration of her application.

1. Whether SECL should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s application for employment allegedly claimed in lieu of land acquired for the Kusmunda project.

2. Whether the High Court should itself adjudicate the petitioner’s entitlement to employment under the applicable rehabilitation policy, or merely direct the competent authority to consider her claim.

The Court exercised its supervisory and writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Court applied the principle that where a petitioner seeks consideration of a pending representation or claim by the competent authority, the Court may issue a limited mandamus directing the authority to decide the application within a reasonable time, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the substantive entitlement.

The Court also preserved the petitioner’s right to submit a fresh application with supporting documents, while leaving the merits to be determined by SECL.

The petitioner placed on record a claim based on acquisition of family land, her nomination by her mother, and prior representations to SECL, but the authorities had not taken a decision on the claim.

Since the respondents had no objection to a direction for consideration of the application, the Court found it unnecessary to keep the writ petition pending or to determine the petitioner’s actual eligibility for employment.

It therefore adopted a limited approach by directing SECL to decide the application, while permitting the petitioner to file a fresh application with all necessary documents.

The Court expressly refrained from examining the merits of the employment claim.

The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh application within one week, enclosing all relevant documents and a copy of the order.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.