http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1774 of 2008

PETITIONER: Steel Authority of India Ltd.

RESPONDENT: Deby Lal Mahato & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/03/2008

BENCH: A.K.MATHUR & ALTAMAS KABIR

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 1415 of 2007) 1.      Leave granted. 2.      This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated  3rd/10th January, 2007 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Contempt  Case (C) Nos. 20, 34, 39 and 178 of 2006 in respect of displaced persons belonging to  category No. 2.  By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High  Court has issued Contempt Notice for non-compliance of the orders dated 7th April, 1998  and 1st August, 2000 passed by the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench (as it then was).  3.      The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that Bokaro  Steel Plant, a national project of the Government of India, was commissioned on land  acquired from the various land holders.  For acquisition of their lands, the land holders  were not only paid compensation but in addition to that, an understanding was reached  between the Union Government, the State Government and the Company that apart from  compensation, one person from each displaced family would be given employment in the  steel plant.  This evoked a spate of petitions and various orders were passed from time to  time in view of the assurance which was given in the minutes of the Understanding dated  25th January, 1964.  In view of the Understanding, a list was prepared of all persons  whose lands were acquired along with buildings and structures and those whose lands had  been acquired which did not have any building and structure thereon.  The original list  prepared in the year 1972 consisted of 6019 displaced families and against that more than  16,000 (approx.) persons have already been given employment. 4.      Thereafter, on 5.9.1991, 150 vacancies arose in Khalasi post for displaced persons  and a scheme was framed which was approved by the Jharkhand High Court in LPA Nos.  161-162 of 1996 for filling up the vacancies advertised on 5.9.1991.  A direction was given  by the Division Bench in its order dated 7th April, 1998, which reads as under: "Both these appeals are accordingly disposed of in terms of the  aforementioned scheme proposed by the Steel Authority with the  following direction/observations:- (i)     The Steel Authority shall prepare a list containing names of  displaced persons in accordance with clause (1) of the proposed scheme  within two months of the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.   The list so prepared shall be sent to the Director, Project Land and  Rehabilitation, for verification, who shall get the bonafide of the status  and claim of such persons verified and submit the report in connection  therewith to the Steel Authority within three months from the date of  receipt of the request for verification.  The Steel Authority will thereafter  hold interview for selection of suitable candidates and prepare a panel  containing the names of selected displaced persons within two months. (ii)    The persons whose names are included in the panel will be  placed in two categories according to the criteria already laid down and  referred to hereinbefore.  The persons in category no. (i) will be given  employment first.  Thereafter, those who are included in category no. (ii)  will be considered for employment." 5.      Thus in terms of the direction given by the High Court, two lists of displaced  persons were prepared. Category (i) list consisted of persons whose lands alongwith  buildings were acquired and category (ii) list consisted of persons whose lands alone were

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

acquired.  As per the direction of the High Court, employment was to be given first to  persons of category (i) and those whose names were included in category (ii) were to be  considered for employment. Then some directions were also given by the High Court on  1.8.2000.   Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, Director, Project Land &  Rehabilitation (for short ’DPLR’) prepared a list and sent the names of 286 persons and  on verification it was found that 79 persons were not eligible for consideration in  category(i) and on 8.4.2002, the DPLR confirmed the list of 207 persons in category (i)  who were eligible for appointment.  Out of the said 207 persons, 195 persons were given  appointment against notified 150 vacancies.  12 persons were found medically  unfit/unsuitable/ineligible for appointment.  This exhausted the category (i) list of 207  persons provided by DPLR.   6.      Thereafter, some persons who claimed to be displaced persons under category (ii)  filed a contempt petition before the High Court.  On 25.8.2006 the said contempt  proceedings were dropped.  However, in other similar contempt petitions notices were  issued to the Managing Director of the Steel Authority of India Ltd-appellant.   7.      So far as the list of category (ii) is concerned, the DPLR gave a list of 970 person s  because the list of category (i) had already been exhausted and all the persons whose  names were forwarded by the DPLR were given employment except those who were were  found to be medically unfit/unsuitable/ineligible.  Then on 1.6.2007 the appellant  advertised for 300 general vacancies in the company and the same were filled up after due  selection process and the 26 persons who moved for contempt were also selected in the  said process, other things being equal.   8.      Again, the appellant came to see that despite having already exhausted the list of  category (i) and also having appointed 26 persons from category (ii), they are again under  the threat of contempt, although they are under no obligation to give employment to  persons placed in category (ii) as under the orders of the High Court dated 7.4.1998, they  were only required to be considered for employment. 9.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties.  Learned counsel for the appellant  has invited our attention to subsequent Memorandum of the Government dated 3.2.1986  in which it was clearly mentioned in sub-para (v) of para 4 as under:-         "In the context of the urgent necessity of public sector  enterprises operating at commercially viable levels and generating  adequate internal resources, over manning has to be guarded against,  any understanding formal or informal in regard to offer of employment  to one member of every dispossessed family in the project will stand  withdrawn." 10.     It is unfortunate that despite the scheme having been withdrawn way back in  1986, the same finds no mention in any of the litigation which has arisen with regard to  the project.  If the decision to withdraw the scheme was already taken by the Government  of India in 1986 then that should have been brought to the notice of the Courts at  appropriate time that whatever scheme that had to be implemented had in fact been  already implemented and henceforth no further employment would be given in terms of  the scheme to such landless people whose lands had been acquired.  Had this fact been  brought to the notice of the Courts by the parties perhaps things would have been  different.  But unfortunately, this basic fact has been lost sight of and this has resulted  in  a large number of litigation and the present contempt petitions before the High Court are  an outcome of this. 11.     Be that as it may, it is now high time to put an end to the litigation.  It is an  admitted fact that the project was completed way back in 1966 and even after more than  40 years of the completion of the project, people whose land was acquired for the  purposes of the project are still litigating for getting employment. This is not at all  warranted.  At the relevant time, the intention of the government was to rehabilitate the  landless people whose lands had been acquired and to provide employment to one  member of the displaced family so that they could maintain the family so displaced.  It  was not at all the intention of the government to distribute this kind of largesse on an  indefinite basis.  This is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. 12.     However, in order to put an end to the controversy at hand, we direct that the  970 persons whose names have been included in category (ii) as per order dated 7.4.1998  of the High Court will be considered for appointment, other things being  equal.  It is  submitted by counsel for the appellant that in the advertisement dated on 1.6.2007 for  300 general vacancies     it has been mentioned that preference will be given to those  displaced persons whose lands have been acquired.  The relevant portion of the  advertisement reads as under :-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

       "Preference will be given to local displaced persons of Bokaro as per  Company’s policy."       It may be made clear that consideration of the names of persons for employment does not  give them a right to appointment.  Other things being equal, they will be given preference  in the matter of employment as and when vacancies arise. 13.     We also record our displeasure that every now and then under the contempt  notice the officials are required to attend courts which hampers the working of the  administration.   We have already expressed this view in the case of State of Gujarat Vs.  Turabali Gulamhussain Hirani & Anr.  reported in (2007) 10 SCR, 531 (to which one of  us, Mathur, J. was a party).  Hence the practice of calling the officials in contempt  proceedings should be minimised and only in exceptional cases the concerned officials  may be called.   14.     In the result, we set aside the judgment and order dated 3/10.01.2007 passed by  the Division Bench of the High Court and dismiss the contempt proceedings pending  before it.   We allow this appeal with the direction that the 970 persons whose names  appear in category (ii) as per the direction of the High Court 7.4.1998 shall be considered  and given preference for employment, other things being equal.          Appeal allowed.  No order as to costs.