- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
South-Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Prem Kumar Sharma And Others
Supreme Court of India
Employment to Land-Losers – Guidelines Case
Factual and Procedural Background
Respondent 1, Prem Kumar Sharma, whose small parcel of land (0.72 decimal jointly owned with 10 others) was acquired, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court claiming employment on the ground that he was a “land-loser.” On 8-8-2001 the High Court directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to consider his claim. The Sub-Divisional Officer found him entitled, prompting the present appellant (a coal company) to challenge that finding in a separate writ petition.
The Single Judge of the High Court nevertheless held that acquisition of Respondent 1’s land entitled him to compensatory employment and ordered the company to appoint his son/dependent within twelve months, creating a post if no vacancy arose. In a Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench modified the order, requiring only that the respondent’s case be “considered whenever a vacancy arises.”
The company appealed to the Supreme Court, leading to the present judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, under the uniform guidelines dated 22-12-1984 governing employment to land-losers, Respondent 1 was entitled to appointment despite the acquisition of less than the prescribed minimum land.
- Whether the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution permits Respondent 1 to claim employment merely because others allegedly received appointments in comparable circumstances.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The 1984 uniform guidelines grant employment only when the land-loser has lost at least 3 acres of non-irrigated land or 2 acres of irrigated land; Respondent 1 lost far less (0.72 decimal), hence is ineligible.
- The High Court’s direction ignores the binding guidelines and violates the sanctioned manpower norms of the company.
Respondent 1’s Arguments
- The guidelines have not been applied uniformly; in several instances persons who lost even smaller extents of land were granted employment.
- On grounds of parity and fairness, similar treatment should be extended to Respondent 1.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1996) 2 SCC 459 | Article 14 cannot be invoked to perpetuate or replicate an illegality or irregularity. | Used to reject Respondent 1’s claim that employment should be granted merely because others allegedly received it illegally. |
| Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 35 | Court cannot direct repetition of an illegal act under the guise of equality. | Cited to reinforce that illegal allotments to others do not create a right in favour of the respondent. |
| State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann, (1997) 3 SCC 321 | Two wrongs do not create enforceable equality; a wrong decision does not confer a similar right on others. | Relied on to negate the argument that prior wrongful appointments mandate Respondent 1's appointment. |
| State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, (2000) 9 SCC 94 | Further affirmation that illegality cannot be perpetuated through equality claims. | Referenced as part of the line of authority supporting the Court’s approach. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first examined the undisputed 1984 guidelines, which condition employment on the acquisition of at least 3 acres (non-irrigated) or 2 acres (irrigated) from an individual land-owner. Respondent 1’s acquired share was far below this threshold; hence, on a plain reading of the guidelines, he possessed no substantive right to employment.
The respondent sought to rely on alleged past deviations by the company. The Court applied settled constitutional doctrine that Article 14 embodies positive equality and cannot compel an authority to repeat an illegality. Citing the line of precedents listed above, the Court held that wrongful benefits extended to others cannot be invoked to create an entitlement where none exists.
Because Respondent 1 lacked the requisite quantum of acquired land and because parity cannot be founded on prior irregular appointments, the High Court's directions—both by the Single Judge and as modified by the Division Bench—were legally unsustainable.
Holding and Implications
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Direct Effect: Respondent 1 is not entitled to appointment, and the appellant company is relieved of the High Court’s employment directives. Broader Implications: The judgment reinforces that compensatory employment schemes are to be administered strictly in accordance with prescribed guidelines and that Article 14 cannot be used to perpetuate previous administrative irregularities. No new legal precedent was created; the Court applied existing constitutional principles.
Arijit Pasayat, J.— Leave granted.
2. The appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench. Background facts leading to filing of the appeal are as follows:
Respondent 1, Prem Kumar Sharma filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming appointment on the ground that he was a land-loser. The High Court by its order dated 8-8-2001 directed consideration by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Since the Sub-Divisional Officer held that he was entitled to employment, a writ petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court. The High Court held that since the land of Respondent 1 had been acquired, he was entitled for compensatory appointment. The High Court gave the following directions:
“The petitioner is directed to extend the employment to the son/defendant (sic dependent) as the case may be of Respondent 3, within a period of twelve months from today, on availability of first vacancy with the petitioner.
In case no vacancy arises within the period, the petitioner shall create a post for the employment, in this regard.”
3. Questioning the correctness of the judgment, a letters patent appeal was filed by the appellant before the Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court modified the direction to the following extent:
“On due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we direct the petitioner to consider the case of Respondent 3 Prem Kumar Sharma for the employment to his son/dependent as the case may be, whenever the vacancy arises.”
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entitlement to employment of a person whose land has been acquired is governed by the guidelines dated 22-12-1984. The approved recommendations of the Committee constituted by the Government of India, Ministry of Energy, Department of Coal, evolving uniform guidelines for employment to the land-losers stipulated that the person concerned should have lost either 3 acres of non-irrigated land or 2 acres of irrigated land. Admittedly, the total land acquired in the case of Respondent 1 is 0.72 decimal which Respondent 1 originally owned along with 10 others. Therefore, he is not entitled to any relief and the High Court should not have given the directions as done.
5. In response, learned counsel for Respondent 1 submitted that the norms fixed have not been uniformly followed and in several cases acquisitions were for lesser extent of land and they have been given employment. Several instances have been highlighted. The appellant has filed affidavits indicating as to how those cases were not similar.
6. The guidelines which are undisputedly applicable read as follows:
“The Government had earlier constituted a committee to consider evolution of uniform guidelines for providing employment to land-losers. The Committee had submitted its report and the same has now been accepted by the Government subject to one amendment vide Letter No. 55011/14/83-PIR/CP dated 17-11-1984. Copy enclosed. The approved uniform guideline is annexed with this letter. You are requested to kindly ensure that these guidelines are implemented in your company.”
7. In the approved recommendations of the Committee constituted by the Government of India, Ministry of Energy, Department of Coal evolving uniform guidelines for employment to the land-losers, it has been inter alia stated as follows:
“(i) The standard norm should be one employment for 3 acres of non-irrigated land and 2 acres of irrigated land. The practice ECL should be brought on a par with the practice in the other 3 companies.
(ii) However, if the land-loser being considered for employment is a matriculate or above, the norm may be reduced to 2 acres per person if he opts to join initially as an apprentice for a period of 2 years during which he may be paid a fixed stipend per month. His regulation will subsequently be governed by the normal rules of the Company.
(iii) For the purpose of employment the unit will be landowner/raiyat whose title appears in the record-of-rights of the particular village and will include his direct linear dependent.
(iv) The Committee deliberated on the point whether employment to land-loser should be accepted as a compulsory obligation of the management of the Coal Company, irrespective of the requirement of manpower. The Committee recommends that wherever possible, effort should be made to offer increased amount of compensation to the land-losers with a view to content the manpower unless the Company has the requirement of personnel in a particular category within the sanctioned strength of the manpower.”
8. A bare perusal of the recommendations and the guidelines make the position clear that acquired area should be 3 acres of non-irrigated land or 2 acres of irrigated land. Because the acquired area is much less under the recommendations/guidelines, the respondent was not entitled to any relief. The other question is as to whether Respondent 1 was entitled to be appointed on the ground that some others have been appointed.
9. The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. When any authority is shown to have committed any illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual or group of individuals the others cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on the ground of denial thereof to them. Similarly, wrong judgment passed in favour of one individual does not entitle others to claim similar benefits.
10. In this regard this Court in Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1996) 2 SCC 459 held that citizens have assumed wrong notions regarding the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equality before law to all citizens. Benefits extended to some persons in an irregular or illegal manner cannot be claimed by a citizen on the plea of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution by way of writ petition filed in the High Court. The Court observed:
“9. … Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within the equality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Court to enforce such claim of equality before law. If such claims are enforced, it shall amount to directing to continue and perpetuate an illegal procedure or an illegal order for extending similar benefits to others. Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been a discrimination.”
11. In Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain (1997) 1 SCC 35 this Court considered the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution and reiterated its earlier position regarding the concept of equality, holding:
“28. … Suffice it to hold that the illegal allotment founded upon ultra vires and illegal policy of allotment made to some other persons wrongly, would not form a legal premise to ensure it to the respondent or to repeat or perpetuate such illegal order, nor could it be legalised. In other words, judicial process cannot be abused to perpetuate the illegalities. Thus considered, we hold that the High Court was clearly in error in directing the appellants to allot the land to the respondents.”
12. In State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann (1997) 3 SCC 321 this Court observed:
“3. … The doctrine of discrimination is founded upon existence of an enforceable right. He was discriminated and denied equality as some similarly situated persons had been given the same relief. Article 14 would apply only when invidious discrimination is meted out to equals and similarly circumstanced without any rational basis or relationship in that behalf. The respondent has no right, whatsoever and cannot be given the relief wrongly given to them i.e benefit of withdrawal of resignation. The High Court was wholly wrong in reaching the conclusion that there was invidious discrimination. If we cannot allow a wrong to perpetrate, an employee, after committing misappropriation of money, is dismissed from service and subsequently that order is withdrawn and he is reinstated into the service. Can a similarly circumstanced person claim equality under Section 14 for reinstatement? The answer is obviously ‘No’. In a converse case, in the first instance, one may be wrong but the wrong order cannot be the foundation for claiming equality for enforcement of the same order. As stated earlier, his right must be founded upon enforceable right to entitle him to the equality treatment for enforcement thereof. A wrong decision by the Government does not give a right to enforce the wrong order and claim parity or equality. Two wrongs can never make a right.”
(See State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh (2000) 9 SCC 94.)
13. Above being the legal position, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench were not justified in giving impugned directions. Their orders are accordingly set aside.
14. Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
Alert