MP High Court Orders Probe Into Coal India Rehabilitation Jobs Allegedly Secured Through 'Marriage' With Landowners' Daughters

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered an inquiry into appointments secured under the land acquisition rehabilitation scheme of South Eastern Coalfields Limited (subsidiary of Coal India), noting that certain individuals have allegedly secured employment by marrying daughters of tribal landowners (who were entitled to jobs in lieu of acquisition) and later abandoned the marriage after securing employment.The bench of Justice Maninder S Bhatti observed that the land belonged to the persons who were tribal as well as illiterate and they were lured by machiavellian persons to secure employment."The land owners were paid compensation and apart from the compensation, the policy contained provisions for employment in lieu of acquisition. The said provisions of the policy were misused by certain persons by projecting a factum of marriage with the daughter of the land owner and after securing employment, the said marriages were kept aside and subsequently, the persons who secured employment got married elsewhere.Court said such ventures by the persons who secured employment virtually deprived the legitimate claimant i.e., the land owner or his linear dependent.The court thus directed:"let an inquiry be conducted in respect of all such appointments and after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned, including those who secured employment as well as the land owners, and also their daughters, marriage with whom was made a basis to secure employment. After the conduct of inquiry, if it is found that the marriage was solemnized only in order to secure employment as per the Rehabilitation Scheme, the respondents would be at liberty to take appropriate action against such persons". The petition was filed challenging the order passed by the General Manager of South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), whereby a major penalty was imposed, demoting the petitioner from Clerk Grade II to Clerk Grade III. The petitioner was appointed as Loader with the company in November 1985, and was promoted to Clerk Grade III in 1991 and Clerk Grade II in 1995. According to the petitioner, he married Meera Bai in 1984 and divorced her in 1986 per the tribal customs. Thereafter, he contracted a second marriage with Sarla Singh and informed the employer about the marriage. Following the death of Sarla Singh, he married Vidyawati Singh and duly intimidated the employer regarding this marriage. However, in October 2005, a chargesheet was issued against the petitioner, alleging that he had committed bigamy by entering into another marriage without legally dissolving his first marriage with Meera Bai, thereby violating Clause 26.20 of Certified Standing Orders. The petitioner submitted a reply to the chargesheet, but the same was found unsatisfactory. Consequently, a departmental inquiry was initiated, following which the major penalty was imposed upon him. The petitioner thus approached the High Court, which was dismissed with directions to the company to consider his representation. Subsequently, the company rejected the representation, leading to the filing of the present writ petition. The senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the sole allegation was that the petitioner had failed to obtain prior permission from the management before entering into a second marriage while the first was subsisting. The senior counsel further argued that the inquiry office held that the charge was to be proved without properly considering the testimony of the first wife, who had deposed regarding customary practices of separation and dissolution prevailing in their tribal community. On the other hand, the counsel for the company argued that the petitioner had secured employment because he was the son-in-law of the landowner whose land was acquired by the company and was given employment in lieu of acquisition. The counsel for the company argued that under the policy, employment could be granted to a direct linear dependent of the land owner and the petitioner was treated as a dependent per the policy. Examining the inquiry report, the court noted that the petitioner's second marriage without prior permission from the company had a direct nexus with Standing Orders of 26.20. The court observed that the petitioner himself was not the landowner and had secured employment solely because he was the son-in-law of the landowner. The court also found that there was no material on record to show that the petitioner had informed the company about the dissolution of his marriage with Meera Bai or sought permission before entering into another marriage. Dismissing the petitioner, the bench held, "Therefore, in view of the aforesaid analysis, it is clear that it is a case where the charge levelled against the petitioner was duly proved and hence, this Court is of the view that the petition is liable to be dismissed as no interference with the impugned order is warranted". The bench also expressed concern over the alleged misuse of rehabilitation...

MP High Court Orders Probe Into Coal India Rehabilitation Jobs Allegedly Secured Through 'Marriage' With Landowners' Daughters

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

MP High Court Orders Probe Into Coal India Rehabilitation Jobs Allegedly Secured Through 'Marriage' With Landowners' Daughters

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers