SECL Cannot Deny Job To Landowner’s Son | Chhattisgarh HC Quashes Rejection Order | Court Invokes Promissory Estoppel Over Employment Promise
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Chhattisgarh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, on July 1, 2025, quashed the rejection order issued by a public sector undertaking and directed that employment be granted to the petitioner’s son along with all consequential benefits from July 6, 2017. The court held that the denial of appointment, despite acquisition of the petitioner’s land and payment of compensation, was unjustified and not legally sustainable.
In a case concerning the claim for employment under the rehabilitation policy following land acquisition, the court found that the respondents' refusal to appoint the petitioner’s son was based on untenable grounds. The High Court further noted that the conduct of the public sector entity in question was neither fair nor reasonable, thereby contravening its obligations under Article 12 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to treat the petitioner’s claim as of the date of initial rejection. The court stated that the respondents could not benefit from their own error, particularly after wrongfully granting employment to an unrelated individual who was later dismissed for fraud.
The petitioner, a resident of Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order dated July 6, 2017, by which her claim for employment to her son in lieu of acquired land was rejected. The respondent in the matter was South Eastern Coal Fields Limited (SECL), a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd.
According to the petition, the land bearing khasra No. 704/4, area 0.21 acre situated at village Dipka, was acquired under a notification dated October 19, 1981, published on November 7, 1981, under Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. The petitioner was paid compensation on September 11, 1985, which was accepted without any demur, recognizing her as the title-holder.
The petitioner, however, was not granted any employment as per the rehabilitation policy. Later, she discovered that employment had been fraudulently given to one Nand Kishore Jaiswal, who impersonated her son. She raised objections and filed a representation, but no action was taken.
As a result, she approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2621/2001, which was disposed of on March 10, 2016. The court directed the SECL to conduct an inquiry against the said individual and to keep a post vacant for the petitioner’s son.
An inquiry was conducted, and it was established that Nand Kishore Jaiswal had fraudulently obtained employment. Consequently, he was dismissed from service by SECL via order dated October 20/22, 2016. Despite this, no action was taken regarding the petitioner’s claim.
Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation for her son’s appointment, which was again not considered. She approached the High Court once more by filing Writ Petition No. 2452/2015. The court, via order dated May 26, 2017, directed SECL to decide her claim expeditiously.
On July 6, 2017, SECL rejected the petitioner’s request, citing two primary grounds: (i) her name was not mutated in the revenue records on the date of the 1981 notification, and (ii) her son was born on January 30, 1985, i.e., after the date of acquisition and was therefore not a dependent.
Challenging the rejection, the petitioner submitted that compensation had already been paid to her, establishing her status as the title-holder. She further argued that one family member is entitled to employment under the rehabilitation policy, and the wrongful appointment of an impersonator had been rectified only after years of litigation. She contended that it would be unjust to deny her son employment now on technical grounds.
Counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Jharkhand High Court in Gunaram Murmu v. State of Jharkhand and others, to argue that denial of appointment in such circumstances was legally unsustainable.
On the other hand, the respondents defended the order by maintaining that the petitioner was not the bhoomiswami on the date of acquisition and that her son was born after the notification, making him ineligible. They cited Supreme Court decisions in M/s Edelweiss Asset Construction Company Ltd. v. R. Perumalswamy and Union of India v. Shivkumar Bhargava to support their stance.
The court began its analysis by affirming that the petitioner’s land was indeed acquired under the Act of 1957 and that compensation was paid to her.
"It is not in dispute that petitioner’s land bearing khasra No. 704/4 area 0.21 acre situated at village Dipka was acquired by competent authority... and in lieu of the acquisition of land, the respondents SECL had two obligations; first to make payment of compensation... and second to grant employment to any member of petitioner’s family as per the rehabilitation policy."
The court observed that employment was wrongly given to Nand Kishore Jaiswal who had impersonated a family member. It noted: "...respondents though ultimately dismissed said Nand Kishore Jaiswal from service by order dated 20-22/10/2016 after finding him guilty of obtaining employment in lieu of petitioner’s acquired land by practising fraud, but did not take any action with regard to granting petitioner’s claim."
On the issue of mutation, the court rejected the respondents' argument: "Mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. It is simply an evidence of possession over the land."
The court held that since compensation was paid in 1985, the petitioner was recognized as the title-holder and mutation date was irrelevant. It stated: "Merely because mutation has taken place after the date of acquisition... it would have no adverse effect on petitioner’s title... and this ground raised by the respondents... is totally untenable."
Regarding the son’s date of birth, the court found this reasoning equally untenable. It observed: "...the respondents SECL ought to have offered employment to the petitioner right in time and at that time, the petitioner could have nominated herself or any other member of her family."
"Merely because petitioner’s son was not born on the date of acquisition... her claim cannot be rejected now as that would give an unfair advantage to the respondents SECL and they cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong."
The court stated that SECL, being a public sector entity under Article 12, must act fairly and reasonably: "It is their duty to act fairly and reasonably."
Referring to Mohan Mahto v. Central Coal Field Ltd., the court cited: "We expect a public sector undertaking which is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India not only to act fairly but also reasonably and bona fide. In this case, we are satisfied that the action of the respondent is neither fair nor reasonable nor bona fide."
The court held that SECL's refusal amounted to a violation of the doctrine of promissory estoppel: "At the time of acquisition, the respondents SECL had clearly promised payment of compensation as well as grant of appointment... but... refused to fulfill their promise... which is hit by the doctrine of 'Promissory Estoppel'."
The court quashed the impugned order dated July 6, 2017. It issued the following directions: "The impugned order dated 06/07/2017 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed."
Further, the court instructed SECL to consider the petitioner’s case as of the date the claim was originally rejected: "The respondents are directed to consider petitioner’s case as on 06/07/2017 i.e. the date on which she was first denied appointment by SECL."
The court mandated the grant of employment to the petitioner’s son: "Her son be granted appointment and he will be entitled for the consequential benefits w.e.f. 06/07/2017."
The writ petition was accordingly allowed to the extent indicated.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Alok Bakshi with Ms. Kusum Lalchandani and Mr. Shivansh Gopal, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, Advocate
Case Title: Smt. Nirmala Devi v. South Eastern Coal Fields Limited & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:29652
Case Number: Writ Petition (S) No. 4156 of 2017
Bench: Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
