A Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Justice Lok Pal Singh heard the case of Ankit Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
The Petitioner in this case was seeking for the following reliefs:
- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record of the case and to quash the order/letter passed by the respondent by which the respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner.
- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner in terms of the agreement executed between their grandfather and the sugar factory.
Facts of the Case
Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mill Ltd., District Nainital was established in the year 1974. At the time of establishment, some farmers provided their land for the Mill, in lieu whereof, they were given a share in the respondent Mill as per the area of their land. Besides this, the landowners/shareholders and the respondent Mill entered into an agreement whereby it was provided that on the basis of land provided, employment will be given to the farmer himself, his son/grandson as per their qualification in the factory.
The grievance of the petitioner was that he is the heir /member of one of such families whose land was acquired for the purpose of establishment of a factory but he was denied employment by the respondent, despite taking the land. In this regard, several representations were made before the authorities but no heed was paid thereon. Lastly, the petitioner’s father moved a representation before the respondent requesting to provide employment to the petitioner, which was rejected by the respondent on the ground that the name of the petitioner’s father was not present in the list of those landowners who transferred their land in favour of the respondent Sugar Mill.
Subsequently, a counter affidavit was filed by the respondent stating that as per the condition of the agreement between the original land donor, Shri Balka Singh, employment was provided to his son Rishipal (uncle of petitioner) who had also retired from service, and after his retirement, neither his legal heir nor any other grandson of Late Balka was entitled to get the service in Sugar Mill.
Contentions of the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the agreement executed between the shareholder and the respondent Mill, the family of the shareholder is entitled to get employment upto three generations and as such the respondent Mill had wrongly denied employment to the petitioner.
He further submitted that even if the first employment was provided to the son of the land donor viz. uncle of the petitioner, the petitioner was also entitled to employment in the sugar mill.
Contentions of the Respondent
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per the language and understanding of the agreement, either the son or grandson was entitled to get employment in the respondent Mill.
He further submitted that there was a stroke “/” between Purta (son) and potra (grandson) which means that either the son or the grandson would be provided the employment. He also submitted that the son of the original land donor i.e. uncle of the petitioner had already been provided employment, therefore, the petitioner who is the grandson was not entitled to provide the employment.
In order to support his submissions, learned counsel for respondent referred to:
- Rasal Singh v. Election Commission of India and others, 2014
- Awdesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar, 2011
- Balsara Home Products v. Director General cited in 2006 (1 to 6) DLT 391
Court’s Analysis
The Court opined that the respondent Sugar Mill should have considered the fact that the landowner who donated the land for the establishment of the sugar mill, their future generation should not be left starving. The interpretation of the agreement by the respondent to the effect that either the son or grandson will be provided employment is unsustainable in the eyes of law. It was accordingly held that denial of employment to the petitioner by the respondent mill was arbitrary and illegal.
Court’s Decision
In this case, the writ petition was allowed. A mandamus was issued to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for employment, as per his eligibility, within a period of three months from the date of judgement.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
