Smt. Sandhya Prabhudas Ramteke & Ors. vs The Chief General Manager & Ors.

Heard.

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners in this petition are the female dependents of the land owners of whom the land was acquired in the Umrer area by Western Coalfields Limited (“WCL”) for development. As such the petitioners are the ‘land oustees’. Under the Uniform Guidelines for Employment to Land-losers of 1984, consideration for employment was restricted solely to male members, excluding female members. Consequently, in place of employment benefits, a policy providing monetary compensation was formulated and the same was extended to the petitioners.

The grievance of the petitioners is that such monetary compensation was initially Rs.2,000/-, which was enhanced to Rs.3,000/-in the year 2001. However, thereafter there is no enhancement in the said amount. It is contended that if they are considered at par with the dependents of non-executives and executives the amount shall be Rs.40,000/-. Thus, in short, the petitioners are claiming enhancement of monetary compensation at par with the compensation of the dependents of non-executives and executives paid in lieu of the employment.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed heavy reliance upon a resolution passed in the meeting held on 01/02/2002 in the presence of CGM, WCL/ Umrer Area wherein the demand of land oustees to enhance the monetary benefits from 2000 to 3000 at par with the dependents of non-executives and executives was considered and was accepted.

The expression, used in the aforesaid letter ‘at par with the dependents of company employees’, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is applicable in all respects in future including whenever such amount of monetary benefit is increased and granted to the dependents of the non-executives and executives.

Shri Kaptan, learned Senior Advocate, on the other hand, strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioners on the ground that the dependents of non-executives and executives is a different class, and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim to treat them as at par with them.

Shri Kaptan, learned counsel points out how the policy of grant of monetary benefits to land outstees was evolved in lieu of the employment and further pointed out that even under the statute monetary benefits provided is Rs.2,000/-, whereas, the WCL is paying Rs.3,000/- per month. He, therefore, submits that there is no right of the petitioners to claim such enhancement.

Having heard the respective parties and gone through the record and the relevant provisions, we are of the opinion that the petition is merit-less for the reasons that the petitioners belong to a different class than the dependents of non-executives and executives. Since both the categories cannot be considered as same or belong to one class, they cannot be treated equally.

Furthermore, the decision taken in the meeting held on 01/02/2002, though referred to expression ‘at par with the monetary benefits given to the dependents of the employees’, it was only with an intention to accept the demand so made at that time by land oustees. However, there is no such decision to treat the land outstees at par with the dependents of the employees, henceforth, for all the time for monetary benefits.

Furthermore, Clause (4) of Schedule 2 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 reads thus :

Sub-clause (c) of the above referred provision is relevant, which says that annuity policies that shall pay not less than two thousand rupees per month per family for twenty years, with appropriate indexation to the Consumer Price Index for Agricultural Labourers.

The petitioners are receiving Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. more than Rs.2,000/- per month, as prescribed. Furthermore, the basic claim of the petitioners to treat them at par with the dependents of the employees itself is not sustainable considering the purpose for granting such monetary benefits to the petitioners-land oustees and the dependents of the employees.

In that view of the matter, we pass the following order:

The writ petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.