S.Ramaswamy Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government of - Court Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.10.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI W.P(MD)No.7654 of 2007 S.Ramaswamy .Petitioner versus 1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Special commissioner and Secretary to the Government Electronics, Science and Technology Department, Fort St.

George, Chennai - 600 009.

3.National Council of Science Museums Section - V, Block-GN, Bidhan Nagar, Calcutta - 700 091.Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to G.O.(1D).No.29, dated 20.02.2001 (Higher Education Department) of the 1st respondent and quash the same and to direct the fiRs.respondent to perform the promise by providing an employment in any Government Department to the petitioner's son R.Sivakumar in the light of G.O.Ms.No.324, dated 18.03.1986, Revenue Department and G.O.Ms.No.656, 29.06.1978, Labour and Employment Department.

!For petitioner : Mr.S.Saji Bino For respondents : Mr.G.Muthukannan, 1 & 2 Government Advocate For 3rd respondent : No appearance :ORDER

The petitioner is the son of one Mr.Sivananaintha Perumal Thevar, who was the cultivating tenant in respect of the lands in Survey Nos.749, 750, 753 & 754, belonging to Ganamaniammal Chatram.

The petitioner's father was wholly depending upon the personal cultivation in the said lands for his livelihood and the petitioner's father was suddenly deprived of only source of livelihood by way of acquisition of those lands by the State of Tamil Nadu for the establishment of District Science Centre at Tirunelveli, by the National Council of Science Museum, Calcutta.

2.Pending acquisition proceedings, G.O.Ms.No.656, Labour and Employment Department, dated 29.06.1978, came to be issued by the Government for providing employment assistance to the families displaced on account of acquisition of lands, in and under which it is instructed that all the Public Sector Undertakings may, without reference to employment exchange, recruit at-least one member of each family which is displaced on account of acquisition of lands for any project of such Public Sector Undertakings, etc.The same is followed by another Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.324, Revenue Department, dated 18.03.1986, whereby the appointing authority of the respective Public Sector Undertakings shall themselves ascertain and decide whether the land was the major source of sustenance of the family displaced from the land acquired, without insisting on production of certificate from the revenue authorities.

The same G.O.Ms.No.324 further reiterates that for consideration of the appointment, the fiRs.priority should be assigned to the cultivating owneRs.cultivating tenants or varamdars and the second priority should be given to the absentee landlords.

The same is also followed by the amendment issued to Land Acquisition Manual, 1967, by making addition, as per which the 'displaced family' includes owner of the land or cultivating tenants or varamdars and a certificate from the revenue authorities not below the rank of Tahsildar to the effect that the acquired land was the major source of sustenance of the family should be obtained by the appointing authority before the recruitment is made.

3.In pursuance of the same, the cultivating tenant by name Mr.Sivananaintha Perumal Thevar made a representation on 23.05.1986 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli, seeking employment to one of his sons Mr.S.Ramasamy, who passed PUC examination.

The same was forwarded by the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government to the Director of District Science Centre, Tirunelveli.

The same was disposed of by the National Council of Science Museum at Calcutta, by order dated 11.11.1993, driving the petitioner to approach the authority concerned for any suitable job in any one of the State Government Departments in terms of G.O.Ms.No.656, dated 29.06.1978 and G.O.Ms.No.324, dated 18.03.1986.

In the meanwhile, the cultivating tenant viz., Mr.Sivananaintha Perumal Thevar died and his son by name Mr.Ramasamy, who is the petitioner herein, made a representation to the second respondent through the District Collector, Tirunelveli.

He also approached the State Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A.No.4537 of 1998 and the Tribunal, by order dated 18.06.1998, directed the Government to consider the representation of the petitioner within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

In pursuance of the same, the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department passed G.O.(1D).No.29, dated 20.02.2001, thereby informing the petitioner that it is only the Public Sector Undertakings for which the lands are acquired must give employment to the displaced persons and not any other Public Sector Undertakings and the State Government has no obligation to do so.

Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition for setting aside the order dated 20.02.2001 and to direct the fiRs.respondent to perform the promise by providing an employment in any Government Department to the petitioner's son in the light of G.O.Ms.No.626 and G.O.Ms.No.324.

4.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that any one of the members of the displaced family has the right to get employment under the Public Sector Undertakings or the company for whom the lands are acquired and as the G.Os.

are passed by the State Government, the State Government is bound to fulfill the promise as made through G.Os.

5.On the contrary, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 would reiterate the same stand that it is the third respondent who is liable to offer employment opportunity to the petitioner.

It is also contended by the learned Government Advocate that the G.Os.

being applicable only to the son of the original cultivating tenant, the same cannot be expanded to cover the grandson of the original cultivating tenant.

6.There is no representation on behalf of the third respondent either in person or through any learned counsel, inspite of due service of notice.

7.Be that as may, the petitioner has been driven from pillar to post to enjoy the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.656, dated 29.06.1978 and G.O.Ms.No.324, dated 18.03.1986.

By that time the issue reached a stage, where the petitioner's request was finally rejected both by the respondents 2 & 3, the petitioner has become overaged which compelled him to approach this Court seeking employment for his son, by name Mr.Sivakumar, who obtained Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, in the examination held in April, 2005.

The attention of this Court is drawn to the fact that the Government OrdeRs.which are relied on by the petitioner, would not restrict the claim for employment to the sons of the cultivating tenant only and as the expression used therein is 'one of the members of the displaced family', the same is wider enough to cover the grandson, especially in view of the peculiar circumstances of the present case, wherein the son of the original cultivating tenant become overaged and hence, unable to enjoy the benefit of the G.Os.

8.The learned counsel for the petitioner has also in the couRs.of his argument drew the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Division Bench of our High Court reported in 2006 (3) MLJ786(Pon Muthu Nadar and another versus State of Tamil Nadu).wherein the Hon'ble Justice P.Sathasivam, as he then was, by relying upon the earlier judgments of the same nature, pleased to hold that the persons whose lands have been taken away are entitled to employment on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.656, dated 29.06.1978 and the promise given by the respondents to provide employment to the persons whose lands have been compulsorily acquired at nominal rate is an obligation and the same cannot be thwarted and the petitioners are entitled to claim the right based on the Government Order, if they satisfy and are found to be eligible upon scrutiny by the OfficeRs.While doing so, the Division Bench of this Court has observed that there is no compulsion on the part of the authorities to provide employment immediately after acquisition and the employment can be provided at the appropriate time, depending upon the availability, after the completion of the construction and commencement of the project.

The Division Bench has ultimately directed the respondents therein, i.e., the State Government and the Public Sector Undertakings, to fulfill their promise by providing suitable employment to one of the children of each of the appellants in the third respondent company under 'Land Affected Category'.

9.Applying the same view, this Court is inclined to issue suitable direction to the respondents 2 & 3 to provide suitable employment to the petitioner's son by name Mr.R.Sivakumar S/o.S.Ramasamy in the third respondent / National Council of Science Museum under the 'Land Affected Category' subject to his fulfilling the conditions regarding the eligibility criteria.

The petitioner is directed to approach the third respondent in this regard with appropriate application, along with a copy of the relevant record relating to the qualification of the petitioner and the petitioner's son, along with a copy of this order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the third respondent is directed to consider the same within eight weeks thereafter.

10.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

No costs.

Index : yes / No 15.10.2014 Internet : yes / No gcg To 1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Special commissioner and Secretary to the Government Electronics, Science and Technology Department, Fort St.

George, Chennai - 600 009.

3.National Council of Science Museums Section - V, Block-GN, Bidhan Nagar, Calcutta - 700 091.

K.B.K.VASUKI, J.

gcg W.P(MD)Nos.7654 of 2007 15.10.2014