Madrasdated High Court · 2008

post of class IV employment (W.P.4113/98)Directing the 3rd and 4th respondents to consider the appointment ofthe petitioner in preference to others to class-III and class IVemployment and forbear the 3rd and 4th respondents from appointingpersons other than land losers to the post of class III and Class IVemployment (W.P.19761/99)Directing the 3rd and 4th respondents to provide employment to thepetitioners as per the directions in WP No.20127/94 dated 18.9.95since they are the Seniors and their lands were acquired by the 3rdrespondents company (WP 25971/05)Directing the 2nd respondent to issue appointment order to thepetitioner either as unskilled or driver or for any other suitablepost in BHEC Institution following the policy of one job for onefamily of whose lands were acquired by the government for thebenefits of BHEL (WP 27817/04)Directing the respondents to fulfill the promise given by therespondents as per G.O.MS.No.87 dated 27.1.81 by giving permanentemployment to the petitioners in the 3rd Respondent project (WP34838/05) 41392/05, 41541/05, 524/06, 525/06, 526/06, 527/06, 725/06,7560/06, 41184/06, 42147/06, 42148/06, 43708/06, 46929/06, 4319/07,28208/07, 28209/07, 27838/06These Petitions presented to this court under article 226 of theConstitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamuscalling for the records of the 2nd respondent in proceedings in 1. Ref.BHEL:RT:VSW: dated 2.3.06 and quash the same and consequentlydirect the respondents to give permanent employment to the petitioneras per G.O.MS.No.87 dated 27.1.81 in the 2nd respondent project in theunskilled category.(WP No's 11031, 11032, 11033, 11039, 11040, 11041, 11043, 11049,11050, 11051, 11052, 11053, 11054, 11055, 11056, 11732/06, 27829/06,27830/06, 27832/06, 27833/06, 27835/06, 27836/06, 27837/06, 10951,10952, 10953, 10954, 10955, 10956 to 10959, 10960, 10962, 10963.2. Ref.No.BHEL:RT:USW:OO dated 4.3.06 and quash the same andconsequently direct the respondents to give permanent employment tothe petitioner as per G.O.MS.87 dated 27.1.81 in 2nd Respondentproject in unskilled category - WP.Nos.11034, 11035, 11036, 11037,11038, 11042, 11044, 11045, 11046, 11047, 11048, 10957, 10958, 10961.3. Calling for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent BHEL:RT:USW:OO dated 2.3.06 and quash the same and directing the 2ndrespondent to issue an order of appointment to the petitioner as anunskilled worker in Bharath Heavy Electricals Ltd., Boiler Auzillary https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Plant Indhira Gandhi Complex, Ranipet, Vellore WP.19765/05.4. Calling for the records relating to the rejection order dated2.3.2006 passed by the respondent in Office Ref.BHEL.RT:USW:OO quashthe same and direct the respondent to give employment to thepetitioner as unskilled labourer or an NMR by following uniformYardstick in complying with the direction issued by this Court inWP.2096/95 etc. On 18.09.1995 within the time that may be fixed byCourt.[WP.26134/06, 26133/06, 41121/06]WP. 27831/06Petition filed Under article 226 of the Constitution of India toissue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records ofthe 2nd respondent in proceedings Ref.BHEL:RT:USW:OO dated 02/03/2006and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to givepermanent employment to the Petitioner's sister Ms.Lakshmi as per theG.O.Ms.No.87 dated 27-01-1981 in 2nd respondent project in theUnskilled category.WP.27834 of 2006Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India toissue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records ofthe 2nd respondent in proceedings Ref.BHEL:RT:USW:OO dated 02/03/2006and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to givepermanent employment to the Petitioner or his sonMr.L.E.Senthilnathan as per the G.O.Ms.No.87 dated 27-01-1981 in the2nd respondent project in the unskilled category.(WP.27834/06)This Petition presented to this Court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India to issue a Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the3rd respondent from making any recruitment without providingemployment to the 725 displaced land owners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.67,Industries Department dated 27.1.1981 WP 27920/07.This Petition presented to this Court under Article 226 of theconstitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus (or)appropriate order (or) Direction in the nature of writ calling forthe records on the file of the 2nd respondent BHEL:RT:USW:OO dated2.3.2006 and quash the same and direct the 2nd Respondent to issue anorder of Appointment to the 1st Petitioner (or) in her place to the 2ndPetitioner as an unskilled worker in B.H.E.L. Boiler Auxillary PlantIndhira Gandhi Complex, Ranipet, Vellore District (WP 47876/06).For Petitioners in this: Mr. P.H. Manoj Pandian W.P. and other W.Ps. for M/s Anand, Abdul and Vinoth Associates https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioners in: Mr. R. MargabanuW.P. Nos. 4113/98,19765, 27838 & 47876/06For Petitioners in: Mr. R. KarunagaranW.P. No. 25971/95For Petitioners in: Mr. P. ManiW.P. Nos. 26133, 16134 & 41121/06For Petitioner in: Mr. G. JeremiahW.P. No. 27920/07For Respondents 1&2: Mr. P. Muthukumar, GA For Respondents BHEL: Mr. B.T Seshadriin W.P. No. 19765 / 99For Respondents BHEL: Mr. Sanjay Mohanin all other W.Ps. For M/s Ramasubramanian Associates COMMON ORDERThe petitioners in all these writ petitions were land owners andtheir lands were taken over by the respondent Bharat HeavyElectricals Ltd. [for short, 'BHEL'], which is wholly owned by theCentral Government. The said Company has a Boiler AuxiliariesProject (BAP) at Ranipet. In order to locate the plant at Ranipet,1389 acres of land were acquired in and around the villages ofNarasingapuram, Mukundarayapuram, Sikkarajapuram and Vadakkal inRanipet Taluk, North Arcot District.2.The first respondent State Government acquired these landsby G.O. Ms. No. 81 Industries Department dated 27.01.1981. In thisG.O., the Government had promised job guarantee for the land losers.It is necessary to reproduce the said G.O. since the petitionersrelied heavily upon the said G.O. for enforcing their rights."In the Government Order read above, theGovernment have ordered the Acquisition of an extent ofabout 1400 acres of land in the village ofNarasingapuram, Mukundarayapuram, Sikkarajapuram andVadakkal of North Arcot District for putting up theBoiler Auxiliaries Plant of Bharath Heavy ElectricalsLimited. In paragraph 4 of the said Government Orderit was indicated that the Government would take adecision on the question of bearing the cost of theland on getting a report from the Collector, North https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Arcot District.2.The Collector, North Arcot District has nowreported that based on the sales statistics relating tothe period prior to December 1979, the average cost ofwet lands is about Rs.6,000/- per acre and the cost ofdry lands with irrigation facility is about Rs.5,000/-per acre and that the enhancement of the land valuecannot be ruled out altogether.3.It has been represented to Government thatlands of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited at Tiruchiwere acquired and given to Bharat Heavy ElectricalsLimited free of cost and that precedents showed thatthe statement Government had borne the cost of land forsuch projects. After careful examination of thematter, the Government have decided that they may bearthe cost of acquisition, subject to a ceiling of Rs.75lakhs (Rupees seventy five lakhs only) and subject tothe following conditions:-(a)In the matter of recruitment in the BoilerAuxiliaries Plant preference should be givento the land owners who will be deprived oftheir wet land on account of the acquisitionof the lands for this project(b)in the case of land owners who will becompletely deprived of their entire extentof land at least one member from each familyof displaced land owners should be givenemployment in the project.(c)No further grant / Financial assistanceshall be given to any other item of worksuch as housing and provision of waterrelating to this project.4.The Director of Industries and Commerce isrequested to take necessary action to make provision inthe Budget to give effect to the decision above. TheGeneral Manager, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited,Ranipet Expansion Scheme is requested to ensure thatthe conditions in paragraph 3 above are fulfilled."[Emphasis added]3.When these promises were not fulfilled by the respondentBHEL, a writ petition being W.P. No. 4322 of 1983 was filed bySikkarajapuram Narpani Mandram seeking for a direction to provide https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ employment in the BHEL. During the pendency of the writ petition,this Court passed a direction on 22.10.1983 in W.M.P. Nos. 6514,13133 and 13134 of 1983 and the same is extracted below:"In the nature of the claim made by the writ petition,to show that family members of owners of lands havebeen appointed as per the assurance extended, thethird respondent in the writ petition to prepare atabulated statement of the names of persons whoselands have been acquired, by securing copies of awardsfrom the Land Acquisition Officer. In respect ofeach family involved in the acquisition, name of themember of the family who had been recruited and thepost to which appointment had been made, to befurnished. Thereafter, on production of thosematerials, it would be for the petitioner todemonstrate to this Court that there has been anunjust denial of employment by the third respondent inthe writ petition, in contravention of the assurancesgiven by the State. Deponent of affidavit nowstates that he is agreeable to be appointed asunskilled worker. Hence he can now be so appointed."4.Subsequently, when the matter came up for final hearing,this Court, by an order dated 20.6.1991, recorded the undertakinggiven by Mr. B.T. Seshadri, learned counsel for the BHEL and disposedof the writ petition with the following observations: ".... According to Mr. B.T. Seshadri, learned counselfor the respondents 2 and 3 that these respondentshave provided employment to all persons from whom thelands were acquired and consequently the petitionercannot have any grievance. However, the learnedcounsel would represent that the respondents 2 and 3did not make any promise and consequently, it is notopen for the petitioner to seek fulfilment of thepromise, which is not made by the respondents 2 and 3.However, it is brought to the notice of the court thatthe respondents 2 and 3 have provided employment toall persons concerned and that the petitioner cannothave any grievance. If any family is left out fromproviding appointment, it is always open to thepetitioner to directly approach the respondents 2 and3 and the respondents 2 and 3, as and when vacanciesarise, may consider those persons for appointment...."5.It is stated by the respondent BHEL in their counteraffidavit dated 12.12.2007 filed in W.P. No. 27920 of 2007 that bythe year 1984, 300 persons were given employment pursuant to the G.O.issued by the Government. The process was continued over the years https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and by June 1991, all 548 eligible persons were given employment.6.In the meanwhile, there were number of agitations by thelocal people, who lost their lands due to the land acquisition andthe District Collector, North Arcot convened a meeting on 13.8.1985between the Revenue Officials and the BHEL officials. The DistrictCollector had categorised 1095 cases in a list of eligible landsufferers. It was ultimately stated that out of 1095 persons, BHELagreed to appoint 201 persons in various posts for which they hadeligibility. Again, on 07.10.1985, another meeting was convened bythe District Collector and the BHEL was impressed to take intoaccount all the eligible persons for providing employment. 7.Not satisfied with the steps taken by the BHEL in fulfillingtheir promise, 150 land losers filed six writ petitions before thisCourt being W.P. Nos. 19839 and 20127 of 1994 and W.P. Nos. 2906,3123, 5339 and 6060 of 1995 and sought for employment with BHELin terms of the promise held out by them. This Court disposed ofthose petitions by a common order dated 18.9.1995 and paragraphs 4 to6 of the said order read as follows:Para 4:"The counsel for the respondent – Company fairlysubmitted that as and when posts become available inthe respondent's factory by way of Casual Labour orotherwise, and if the petitioners, after dueverification, are found to be the persons who areeligible for consideration on the ground that theirfamilies had lost the lands which were acquired forthe company, the Company would consider their cases inpreference to others. That is the best that can bedone for the petitioners at this stage. There cannotbe any unlimited right to the family whose land wasacquired to have an offer employment made, decadesafter the acquisition was completed. Any such claimought to have been made within a reasonable span oftime from the date on which the land was acquired.However, in view of the fact that the respondentCompany is agreeable to give their educationalqualification, suitability, experience, etc., thepetitioners may claim the benefit of the offer so heldout to them now.Para 5:As regards the persons who are now employed and whoclaim a right to have their services regularised, nosuch direction can be given in these writ petitions.As and when vacancies arise in the regular cadres,depending upon the length of service put in by thepetitioners, their claim for regularisation, will nodoubt be considered by the employer. It has beenheld by the Supreme Court in more than one decision https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the claim for regularisation would involveinvestigation of questions of fact which cannotproperly be done in writ proceedings.Para 6:All these writ petitions are dispose of with thedirection that (a) such of the petitioners who claimto have lost their lands, shall be considered, inpreference to others subject to verification of theirclaim and subject to their suitability, qualification,experience, etc., and (b) such of the petitioners whoare now in employment, will be considered forregularisation as and when vacancies arise in theregular cadre."8.The petitioners in W.P. No. 19839 of 1994 filed a WritAppeal being W.A. No.1394 of 1995 challenging the said order. Thesaid writ appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench vide itsjudgment dated 05.02.1996. The operative portion of the judgmentreads as follows:"While maintaining the directions issued by the learnedsingle Judge we further make it clear that as and whenthe vacancy or vacancies arises in BHEL for whichappellants are eligible, they shall be consideredfirst for those vacancies before considering othersand if the Appellants are found eligible they areentitled to be appointed in such vacancies."9.When another set of three persons (M/s R.Shanthi, Y. Nixonand Rajan) filed W.P. No. 7937 of 1995 for similar relief, thesame was dismissed vide order dated 28.6.1995 by another learnedJudge of this Court with the following observations:"The petitioners are entitled to such preference onlyin accordance with the Government orders as are now inforce which regulate such employment. The orderissued by the Central Government, in this regard,clearly would indicate that it is only if thepetitioners are registered with the EmploymentExchange and if their names have been sponsored forposition in the respondents' Industry to which theyare suitable and then preference will be given tothem. To that extent, the petitioners may obtainpreferential treatment subject to their beingqualified for the position and being sponsored by theEmployment Exchange. The direction which is nowsought for cannot be granted. Hence, the writpetition is rejected subject to the observations madeabove." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10.The said order was challenged in writ appeal being W.A. No.342 of 1996 and another Division Bench, by its judgmentdated 10.7.1997, disposed of the writ appeal with the followingdirections:"Therefore, the claim of the appellants herein shallbe considered first for the vacancies beforeconsidering the names of other persons and if theappellants are found eligible they are entitled to beappointed in such vacancies. If the appellants areable to satisfy the authorities in regard to theirentitlement for employment the appellants may apply inpreferential treatment subject to their beingqualified for the position and the Bharath HeavyElectricals Limited shall consider their claim subjectto their requirements / norms and pass appropriateorders accordingly. The Writ Appeal is ordered inthe above terms." 11.When these promises were not fulfilled, one K. Gopu, who wasthe sixth petitioner in W.P. No. 6060 of 1995, filed another writpetition being W.P. No. 4113 of 1998, once again, seeking for adirection for his appointment. In response to that writ petition,the Deputy General Manager (Personnel and Administration) of the BHELfiled a counter affidavit dated 20.7.1999, in paragraph 7 of which,it was averred as follows:"I state that the 71 persons who were employed as NMRon sporadic basis and they were given work dependingupon the exigencies. Out of these 71 persons 15persons have already been regularised in terms of thejudgment of this Hon'ble Court in the writ petitionsas well as in the writ appeal. The remaining personshave got to be considered for regularisation as andwen vacancy arises subject to the qualification,suitability in terms of the judgment. Furtherremaining 79 persons who also claimed to have losttheir lands and who have filed the writ petitions asstated above shall be given preferential treatment foremployment...."12.The State Government, instead of satisfying themselves aboutthe allegations made by the petitioners in various writ petitions,was satisfied with the steps taken by the BHEL as can be seen fromthe counter affidavit dated 30.3.2000 sworn to by the then AdditionalSecretary to the Government, Industries Department. In fact,paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit was a verbatim reproduction ofparagraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the BHEL referred toabove. This apathy by the State Government, once again, made thelocal people to conduct various types of agitations for enforcing the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ promise made by the respondent BHEL. 13.Right from the time when the common order was passed on18.9.1995, followed by two Division Bench's order (the last one beingon 10.7.1997), the respondent BHEL did not call for any applicationfrom the land losers and it was only on 28.10.2005, nearly after aperiod of ten years, they asked the individuals to appear before aCommittee for considering their case. In that letter, variousdirections issued by this Court were referred to and the followingparagraphs from the circular may be reproduced:"You are called upon to be present before acommittee on <<date>> at <<time>> 00 hrs. at HRConference Hall, BHEL, Ranipet along with your personaldetails furnished in the Proforma enclosed as Annexure.You are also requested to bring all your originaldocuments in support of your Age, Qualification,Community and land acquired for BHEL, Ranipet.In support of your personal identity, you arerequired to produce your Voter's Identity Card. Incase if you are not issued with the Voter's IdentityCard, you should bring your ration card along with yourattested passport six photograph.In case of selection as Unskilled Worker,initially you will be appointed as Temporary Employee /Unskilled Worker, for a period of 2 ½ yrs (ie., 1 ½ yrson daily wages and 1 yr. on consolidated wages)This call letter does not guarantee your selectionfor the post of Unskilled Worker and the selectionwill be strictly in accordance with the direction ofthe High Court as mentioned above and the relevantRules & Regulations of the company concerningrecruitment.You are called upon to appear for the aforesaidselection on the date and time as mentioned above andto avail this final opportunity offered to you as perthe judgment of High Court." Subsequent to this exercise of the so-called interview, a stereotyped order dated 02.3.2006 was made ready by the respondent BHELrejecting the claim of all the land losers for employment. Theready-made order contained four reasons and all that the respondentwill have to do is to tick against any one or more reasons to rejectthe claim of the petitioners. The reasons found in the order are asfollows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "1)Your claim to have lost your land is notestablished.2)a)You do not possess the required minimumqualification.b)You do not have required experience.3)You have exceeded the age limit prescribed as perCompany rules."14.Even subsequent to this exercise, many of the land loserswere not given any employment and when it was given, it was only fora fixed tenure or for the post of Unskilled Worker (USW) category.Thereafter, due to the pressure of the local people, a meeting wasconvened by the District Collector on 24.8.2006 between the RevenueOfficials and the officials of BHEL. In that meeting, the DistrictCollector impressed upon the BHEL officials to adhere to the promisegiven by the State Government for acquiring the lands for the plant.After the meeting, certain recommendations were given by the DistrictCollector and accepted by the BHEL. It may be extracted below:"1)The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet to verifythe Award passed and cheques issued to the landlosers and informed to BHEL.b)The total no. of persons appointed shouldidentified by the BHEL and informed to RevenueDivisional Officer, Ranipet.c)The list of persons appointed already should befurnished to the Revenue Divisional Officer,Ranipet.d)Next meeting on the issue of appointment to LandLosers, discussions may be arranged aftercompletion of work in item No. 1 to3."15.It was thereafter, another meeting was convened on08.02.2007 by the District Collector. In that meeting, therespondent BHEL made a statement regarding their commitment ofproviding employment which is as follows:1)Total No. of awards passed:13312)No. of Land Loosers given employment :6063)No. of Land Loosers yet to be given employment :7254)Name of Land Loosers not found in the list given byBHEL :595)No. of Land Loosers requesting job at present:125 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1)Total No. of awards passed:13316)No. of Land Loosers called for interview and attendedand rejected:757)No. of Land Loosers requests are kept pending in BHEL:50On the basis of these details, the respondent BHEL stated that therewere no vacancies available in the plant and many of the applicantshad no experience and were over aged and they were also not eligibleas per the Company's Rules for any employment. 16.This statement was countered by the representatives of thepetitioners by stating that there were 600 to 700 labourers engagedby the BHEL through contract system and for this purpose, 7 to 8contractors have been awarded contracts. The contract system was invogue for more than ten years. Therefore, it was a misnomer tostate that there were no vacancies. It was also pointed out thatfor the year 2006-2007, the BHEL had received orders to the tune ofRs.2700 Crores and they are also expanding the plant and there weremoves to recruit 750 skilled and unskilled workers. Therepresentatives also pointed out that the lands were given free ofcost and about 250 acres were kept with them without any utility. 17.The District Collector made certain suggestions in thatmeeting which were also accepted by the BHEL. In the minutes of themeeting dated 08.02.2007, it was recorded as found below:"The Collector has suggested the BHEL Officials toverify the name of 125 Land Loosers requestingemployment at present and offer comments on it tofinalise the list of Land Losers for giving employmentand send them to the Collector through the RevenueDivisional Officer, Ranipet before the end of thismonth (February, 2007) and it will be taken up fordiscussion in next meeting to be convened in the 2ndweek of March 2007.The BHEL Officials have accepted Collector'ssuggestion. However they informed that everyappointment in the BHEL has to be approved by the BHELBoard. The Collector has suggested the BHELOfficials to take necessary steps to put up thissubject matter before the Board for discussion. Atthe same time the Collector will also write a letter tothe Chairman and Managing Director of BHEL in thisregard."18.It was after this meeting the respondent BHEL wanted toresile from all their commitments in providing jobs to the land https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ losers. The Additional General Manager, by name, R.Palanivelu, whoattended the meeting, wrote a letter dated 12.3.2007 to the DistrictCollector (nearly after one month) in which he relied upon the OfficeMemorandum dated 03.02.1986 issued by the Department of PublicEnterprise, Government of India, which allegedly declared as follows:"... "any understanding, formal or informal, in regardto offer of employment to one member of everydispossessed family in the project will standwithdrawn"...."19.Even though the said memorandum was in existence for over 20years, it was for the first time, the BHEL, with a view to defeat thepromise made by them, suddenly relied upon the above OfficeMemorandum. Apart from the said statement, they had also mentionedthat as many as 125 persons have filed writ petitions before thisCourt and since the matter is subjudice, they cannot make anycommitment. 20.Notwithstanding the same, the District Collector convened ameeting of Revenue Officials, BHEL officials and the representativesof the land losers on 26.3.2007. In that meeting, the respondentBHEL refused to make any commitment and the District Collectorrecorded their stand in the minutes dated 26.3.2007, which reads asfollows:"BHEL Authorities have informed the Collector thattheir action is based on the High Court judgment andany further employment to the Land Loosers will beconsidered only after the receipt of judgment on thewrit petitions pending before High Court, Chennai. Itwas decided to await the Hon'ble Court verdict on thisand the meeting came to an end."21.After the break down of the conciliation meeting held by theDistrict Collector and having taken the stand that they have compliedwith the earlier orders of this Court about considering the case ofthe land losers for employment before any outside recruitment made,the respondent BHEL invited applications for 175 posts of skilledartisans by Employment Notice No. 1 of 2007. The said Notificationwas advertised in all the newspapers. The Ranipet BHEL (BAP) LandLosers' Welfare Association filed a writ petition being W.P. No.27920 of 2007 seeking for a restrained order to the respondent not toemploy any person without considering the claims of 725 displacedland owners. This Court admitted the writ petition and passed thefollowing order dated 22.8.2007 in M.P. No. 1 of 2007:-"Mr. T. Srinivasan, learned Additional GovernmentPleader takes notice for R1, 2 and 4.Learned counselfor the petitioner is directed to take notice to R3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ returnable by 03.9.2007. Private notice is alsopermitted.Third respondent can proceed with the SelectionProcess but none should be appointed till 03.9.2007."22.Thus, the petitioners, having failed in their attempt tosecure employment for over a period of 25 years, have turned theirhopes on the decision to be rendered by this Court and have activatedhearing of these writ petitions.23.Mr. R. Manoj Pandian, learned counsel appearing for themajority of the petitioners, contended that providing for job to theland losers by a Public Sector enterprise was not something new.He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Banwasi SevaAshram v. State of U.P. [(1992) 2 SCC 202] wherein the NationalThermal Power Corporation was directed to provide employment to theland losers. Paragraph 6 of the said judgment and direction Nos. 6to 8 contained therein may be usefully reproduced: Para 6:"We direct that the following measures to rehabilitatethe evictees who were in actual physical possession ofthe lands/houses etc. be taken by the NTPC incollaboration with the State Government:(1) to (5).. Omitted..(6)Unskilled and semi-skilled posts in the projectshall be reserved for the evictees subject totheir eligibility and suitability. (7)The NTPC shall give preference to the oustees inemployment in class III and IV posts under itsadministration subject to their suitability andeligibility.(8)The evictees be offered employment through thecontractors employed by the NTPC."24.He also referred to the subsequent decision of the SupremeCourt in Calcutta Port Trust v. Deba Prosad Bag [1994 Supp (2) SCC101]. In that decision, the Supreme Court upheld the order of theCalcutta High Court in giving direction to the Public Sector Unit.The directions given by the High Court were extracted in paragraph 9of the judgment, which read as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “(a) Until the cases of the petitioners are consideredfor employment in terms of this order, noappointment shall be made in the Class IV gradeexcepting those who are covered by the orders ofthis Court;(b) The petitioners shall give all particulars oftheir respective lands which were acquired forthe Haldia Dock Complex of the Calcutta PortTrust within four weeks from the date ofcommunication of this order. The petitioners willalso give their employment exchange card numberetc.(c) The petitioners shall also furnish the details ofqualifications and experience, if any, so thattheir cases may be considered for appointment inClass IV posts.(d) The respondents shall, within four weeks afterthe particulars are furnished by the petitioners,scrutinise the cases through their own machineryand agency and not through the ScreeningCommittee as specified in the Memorandum No. 323-EMP dated 12th May, 1986. After scrutiny if itappears that the lands, (sic shown in the)particulars, were acquired then the respondentsshall consider the cases of the petitioners forappointment in Class IV grade irrespective of anyother resolution, qualification or any othercondition as a special case.(e) If any petitioner on being considered is notfound suitable for employment as a Class IVstaff, then the reasons thereof shall bedisclosed to such petitioner(s) and in that casesuch disqualified petitioner(s) will be atliberty to move before any appropriate forum.(f) If upon consideration of the relevant facts asmentioned in the judgment, any of the petitionersare found eligible for employment, they shall beprovided with employment in Class IV grade asearly as possible having regard to the availablevacancies.” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

25.The appeal filed by the Calcutta Port Trust was rejected bythe Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. On further Appeal,the Supreme Court upheld those directions in the aforesaid caseexcept holding that all claims should be subjected to screening by aCommittee. The following passage found in paragraph 13 may beextracted below:Para 13:".... Certainly, some person or authority will have toexamine the correctness and bona fides of those whoclaim to be uprooted persons. It is appropriate thatsuch examination is done by a Screening Committee. Sucha screening would ensure elimination of bogus claims.It is a wholesome principle which requires to beadopted in this case. Therefore, we modify the orderunder appeal and direct that the cases of therespondents will be considered by the ScreeningCommittee. The Port Trust had screened 21 persons inthe case of Jayanta Kumar Prodhan & Ors. beforeemploying them. Only after the screening process, theappellant will be required to implement the directionsof the learned Single Judge as confirmed by theDivision Bench...." 26.He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in S.Dharanipathy / M. Lakshmi Devi v. Secretary to Government of TamilNadu, Revenue Department and others [1997 Writ L.R. 498] and referredto the following passages found in paragraph 14 of the said order:Para 14:"In the present case, already a Government Order hasbeen issued ensuring rehabilitation by way ofemployment of all the uprooted family by affording themone employment for each family...."".... The respondents are also estopped byconduct and the failure to provide atleast oneemployment to one displaced family in the fourthrespondent's establishment or in surrounding Defenceestablishment is arbitrary and the denial in so far asthe respondents are concerned. The StateGovernment, District Collector and other PublicAuthorities have been keeping silent and merelyforwarding the letters to the fourth respondent and thefourth respondent's mere acknowledgments of the lettersare of little assistance to those who have beendisplaced by eviction. Every effort should have beenmade by the respondents to provide one employment toeach family displaced by the acquisition. Not only https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the private lands of the persons or the individualshave been acquired, but vast tracts of poramboke landwhere the villagers have together graze cattle and alsoare utilising the said poramboke lands as theirlivelihood of grazing their cattles. Therehabilitations should be not only in form but also inspirit and factual. The fourth respondent shouldhave taken all efforts to provide one employment toeach family as there has been a commitment not only bythe fourth respondent but also by the Ministry ofDefence as seen from the statement made before theParliament by the Union Government."27.The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Courtthe fact that the above said judgment was upheld by the DivisionBench in writ appeal being W.A. Nos. 326 and 327 of 1998, etc. batchcases vide its judgment dated 31.8.2007. Speaking for the DivisionBench, S. Mukhopadhaya, J. observed in paragraphs 5 and 6 as follows:Para 5:"From the aforesaid directions, it will be evident thatthe learned single Judge had not directed to makeexcess appointment beyond the strength. It has onlybeen ordered that no recruitment against Class III andIV or other lower classes shall be made in the NavalAir Station in question from any other source till oneappointment to the members of each of the displacedfamily is provided. Thus, it is clear that theappointments are to be made against the existingvacancies giving preference to one person of eachdisplaced family, as identified by the DistrictCollector. So far as the age limit is concerned,the question of relaxation will come if only one orother person is over age. That question has to bedetermined by the competent authority. Taking intoconsideration the age of persons, that means if aperson is much over age, i.e., more than 50 years, insuch case, the age may not be relaxed, but inappropriate cases, for certain years, it may berelaxed. As the prescription of qualification ofappointment against one or other post is mandatory, weare of the view that no relaxation can be made in thisregard. If a person is not qualified, they can beengaged for other menial work such as, skilled orunskilled labourers.Para 6:In the facts and circumstances, while we are notinclined to interfere with the substantive part of theorder passed by the learned single Judge, the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order is modified and clarified to the extent above."28.He also referred to a judgment of another Division Benchpresided by P. Sathasivam, J. (as he then was) relating to Pon MuthuNadar v. State of Tamil Nadu and others [2006 (3) L.W. 460].The following passages found in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the saidjudgment are extracted below:Para 18:"It is not in dispute that the petitioners whose landshave been taken away and that they are entitled toemployment on the basis of G.O. Ms. No. 656, Labour andEmployment Department, dated 29.6.1978. The promisegiven by the respondents to provide employment to thepersons, whose lands have been compulsorily acquired atnominal rates, is an obligation and the same cannot berejected on the ground of laches. Inasmuch as thepetitioners are claiming their right based on theGovernment Order, if they satisfy and are found to beeligible upon scrutiny by the Officers, they areentitled to employment irrespective of delay orlaches. Even otherwise, as rightly pointed out bythe learned counsel for the petitioner, the learnedJudge failed to appreciate that by the very nature, theprojects are carried out in a phased manner andemployment is given as and when a phase is completed.There is no compulsion on the part of the authoritiesto provide employment immediately after acquisition.In other words, after completion of the constructionand commencement of the project, depending on theavailability, employment would be provided at theappropriate time. Further, as said earlier, thepetitioners also asserted that they are suffering dueto the action of the respondents since the landacquired was their only source of livelihood. Allthese material aspects have not been considered by thelearned Judge, who committed an error in rejectingtheir claim.Para 19:In such circumstances, the Common Order dated 21.8.2000made in W.P. Nos. 14162 and 14189 of 2000 is set aside.Direction is issued to the respondents to fulfil theirpromise by providing suitable employment to one of thechildren of each of the petitioners in the thirdrespondent – Liquid Propulsion Test Facility Centreunder 'Land Affected Category' subject to scrutiny andverification by the officers of the third respondent,within a period of eight weeks from the date of receiptof a copy of this judgment." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

29.He also submitted that in respect of the very same BHEL,this Court in more than one judgment, has given a direction to themto provide employment on the basis of the guarantee given by theGovernment in G.O. Ms. No. 81 Industries Department dated 27.01.1981.He also submitted that despite the assurance given by the StateGovernment, the petitioners, who all belong to the second generation,were made to wait for over 25 years without providing for anyemployment. He submitted that even the employment given for some ofthem, were for period of 45 days on term basis and three daysdeliberate break was given by the BHEL to the workers. 30.A set of eight petitioners filed a writ petition being W.P.No. 34838 of 2005 moved this Court seeking for a direction to grantcontinuous employment pending the main writ petition. This Courtin W.P.M.P. No. 37722 of 2005granted interim direction vide orderdated 28.10.2005. Another set of six persons filed a writ petitionbeing W.P. No. 41392 of 2005 seeking for a direction to therespondents to give interim employment to the petitioners and thisCourt, vide order dated 02.01.2006 in W.P.M.P. No. 44451 of 2005,granted interim direction if the petitioners are eligible andentitled to the relief. Further, another set of six petitionersfiled a writ petition being W.P. No. 27838 of 2006 and sought for adirection to provide continuous employment. This Court, by an orderdated 24.8.2006, has also granted an interim direction to provide forcontinuous employment. Even the list furnished by the respondentManagement that they had provided employment to as many as 651persons will clearly show that as many as 454 persons were providedwith employment in the category of Un-Skilled Workers (USW) and notwith any technical post. Among the eligible persons to getemployment, there were many Diploma holders, Degree holders and ITItrained persons and there were as many as 60 persons who had finished+2 courses. In many cases, the respondent engaged the nominee ofthe land losers as an apprentice / trainee and subsequently,terminated their services. All these were done only as a drama andnot with a view to provide regular employment and the G.O. was notobserved in its letter and spirit. Therefore, he prayed for adirection to the respondents to provide employment to the petitionerswithin a time frame.31.Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for BHEL,brought to the attention of this Court the judgment of the SupremeCourt in Butu Prasad Kumbhar v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. [1995Supp (2) SCC 225] and relied upon the passage found in paragraph 6and it may be usefully extracted below:Para 6:".... Needless to say that petitioners or theirancestors were not deprived of their land withoutfollowing the procedure established in law. Their landwas taken under the Land Acquisition Act. They were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ paid compensation for it. Therefore, the challengeraised on violation of Article 21 is devoid of anymerit. Even otherwise the obligation of the State toensure that no citizen is deprived of his livelihooddoes not extend to provide employment to every memberof each family displaced in consequence of acquisitionof land. Rourkela Plant was established for the growthof the country. It is one of the prestigious steelplants. It was established in public sector. TheGovernment has paid market value for the land acquired.Even if the Government or the steel plant would nothave offered any employment to any person it would nothave resulted in violation of any fundamental right.Yet considering the poverty of the persons who weredisplaced both the Central and the State Governmenttook steps to ensure that each family was protected bygiving employment to at least one member in the plant.We fail to appreciate how such a step by the Governmentis violative of Article 21. The claim of thepetitioners that unless each adult member is givenemployment or the future generation is ensured of apreferential claim it would be arbitrary or contrarywith the constitutional guarantee is indeed stretchingArticle 21 without any regard to its scope and ambit asexplained by this Court. Truly speaking it is just theother way. Acceptance of such a demand would be againstArticle 14."32.He also submitted that subsequently the said judgment cameto be referred to in D.G.M. (HR) P.G. Corpn. of India Ltd. v. T.Venkat Reddy [(2007) 4 SCC 710] and relied upon paragraphs 4 to 7and it may be usefully reproduced below:Para 4:"The respondents claimed to be the owners of the landacquired for establishing a sub-station. The DivisionBench held that no scheme exists in the appellantCorporation to provide employment to the land ousteesor their dependants and that much time had elapsedsince the acquisition. It was, however, of the viewthat a semblance of priority can be recognised so faras the respondents are concerned and as and when theappellant undertakes employment preference was to begiven to the respondents. By its very nature, prioritypresupposes the existence of preference, other thingsbeing equal. The respondents cannot be conferred withthe benefit of any exemption or relaxation but wheneverthe appellant Corporation undertakes to any employmentto any unskilled posts, first it shall consider thecase of the appellants (sic respondents) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ preferentially, subject to their eligibility andfulfilment of other conditions. It was further directedthat in case they were found to be qualified and equalto other persons seeking “such employment”, therespondents shall be considered on priority basis.Para 5:According to learned counsel for the appellants thereis no scheme in operation and, therefore, the questionof providing any priority to any land oustee or hisdependants does not arise.Para 6:"By way of reply, learned counsel for the respondentssubmitted that the orders of the learned Single Judgeand the Division Bench being very innocuous should notbe interfered with. No direction for employment hasbeen given and what has been directed is itsconsideration.Para 7:At this juncture it would be relevant to take note ofwhat has been stated by this Court in Butu PrasadKumbhar v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Theapprehension of the learned counsel for the appellantthat the implementation of the High Court’s order wouldlead to opening of floodgates to similar writ petitionsdoes not appear to be of any substance. The directionfor consideration when other persons seek “suchemployment” can only mean when somebody else is seekingemployment as a land oustee or his dependant.Obviously, if there is no scheme, there cannot be anyconsideration of any prayer for employment on the basisof land oustees or his dependants. Therefore, onlyclarifying the position that the direction of the HighCourt relating to “such employment” will be in relationto persons seeking employment as land oustees or theirdependants. If there is no scheme, the question ofgiving any employment would not arise. It is also clearfrom the order of the High Court that the respondentscannot be conferred with any benefit or exemption orrelaxation."[Emphasis added]33.He also expressed the inability of BHEL to provideemployment to any of the petitioners on the following reasons :a)As on date BHEL does not have any obligationtowards employment after 25 years of landacquisition by Govt. of Tamil Nadu. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ b)All eligible cases of land givers were dulyconsidered for employment at the initial stage ofthe project which works out to nearly 1/3 of thetotal manpower recruitedc)As the employment to Public Sector companies likeBHEL has to strictly follow the recruitment /employment guidelines as per the constitutionalrights and it cannot make any reservation towardsland givers for the vacancies to be filled asthere are no Government guidelines."34.Apart from these general submissions, the learned counselalso submitted that the BHEL had fulfilled its obligation in terms ofthe directions issued by this Court vide order dated 18.9.1995followed by the Division Bench's orders. There were also caseswhere no application was submitted by the land losers at the time ofland acquisition and that many of the claimants were minors at thattime. Apart from that, there are claims of sons-in-law anddaughters-in-law claiming employment and in some cases, there wereinternecine quarrel among the brothers in staking a claim foremployment. In some cases, the relationship with the land losers wasnot established and some of them became over aged. In one or twocases, the claim was based upon the person claiming his / her rightthrough adoption but the adoption was not satisfactorily proved.While in some cases when one brother had got a job through thescheme, other brothers in the family were staking for similaremployment. When the BHEL granted employment for one member in thefamily in respect of the land acquisition award, the other members ofthe same family got the L.A. Award split up in the LAOP Court and onsuch split Award, staked for separate claim. There were also caseswhere the subsequent purchaser had staked for employment assistancewhile the original owner was never before the BHEL. Many of thebeneficiaries, when they came for interview, miserably failed and insome cases, they were not found suitable for the employment. Allthese factors have also been intimated to the petitioners. Thesedetails are given in the form of a note filed in the typed set.35.The learned counsel appearing for the BHEL may be correct insaying that in respect of a family losing the land, there can only beone member of the family will be given the employment assistance andthey are not eligible for a second employment for the same family.Therefore, in those cases, the writ petitions filed by thepetitioners were not maintainable and they may be dismissed. Thefollowing is the list of such persons whose families have alreadybeen given employment for the land acquisition done for the BHEL:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.NoNameW.P. No.Reason for refusal1.Krishnan27817 of 2005Father given employment and leftthe service.2.Poongavanam Ammal10955 of 2006Husband Mr. Murugan alreadyemployed.3.A. Ayyappan11035 of 2006V. Sethu employed (Nominated byland owner) and his fatherAnnamalai is not the land owner.4.L. Poongavanam11037 of 2006L. Gunasekaran employed.(Nominated by land owner)5.V. Sasikumar11044 of 2006Mr. Gangadaran was givenemployment.6.S. Murugan11046 of 2006V. Sethu employed (Nominated byland owner) and Mr. Annamalaiwas not the land owner.7.N. Durairaj11049 of 2006Mr. Narasimhan was givenemployment.8.M. Chandren 11056 of 2006Mothu Pattammal was givenemployment.9.M. Ethiraj 11732 of 2006Mr. Narasimhan was givenemployment.10.K. Baskaran 27837 of 2006A. Shanmugam, nominated by theland owner, was givenemployment.11.M. KotteswariM. SuseelaR.DakshinamurthyK. Murugan27838 of 2006V. Settu (nominated by the landowner) was given employment.L.R. Chidambaram and L.R.Raghupathi, the two brotherswere given employment.Father L.P. Raghavan was givenemployment.K. Dorai was given employment.12.P. Madavan 41184 of 2006Poongavanam, the land ownernominated P. Gowtham, who wasgiven employment.These facts were not controverted by the learned counsel appearingfor the petitioners. Therefore, in the light of the same, these 12 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ writ petitions are dismissed.36.Mr. Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the BHEL, by placingreliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Butu PrasadKumbhar's case (cited supra), submitted that since the petitioners orthe actual land owners have been paid the market value for the landacquired by the State, they cannot seek as a matter of right, anyemployment. However, the Butu Prasad Kumbhar's case came to bereferred to in the subsequent judgment in DGM (HR), P.G. Corporationof India Ltd. case (cited supra) and the Supreme Court in paragraph 7of the judgment, held as follows:".... Obviously, if there is no scheme, there cannot beany consideration of any prayer for employment on thebasis of land oustees or his dependants. .... If thereis no scheme, the question of giving any employmentwould not arise." Therefore, it is too late for the BHEL to contend that there is noemployment guarantee for the land losers. 37.In the present case, the State Government had acquired theland and given it to BHEL virtually free of cost. They had also bytheir order in G.O. Ms. No. 81 Industries Department dated27.01.1981, had guaranteed that at least one member from each familyof the displaced land owners should be given employment and the BHELwas directed to ensure this condition. This was also followed by thedirections issued by this Court in various orders already referred to.38.It is needless to state that in the modern day Government,any large scale displacement of traditional home land of the peoplemust necessarily provide for rehabilitation package to compensate thesuffering. It cannot be said that providing for market value ofthe land will redeem the miseries of the people, who will bedisplaced from the land in which they were living for generationstogether. No development can take place by increasing the miseriesof the poor and downtrodden. In many cases, the poor people maynot have title to the property but must be having occupational rightover the land and their livelihood substantially depends upon thatsource only. The lives of the people cannot be quantified on thebasis of "cost of carbon" as was done while constructing the 5thterminal of the Heathrow Airport in London (U.K.). 39.Our Supreme Court, conscious of the obligation of the Statein providing a rehabilitation for the land oustees, is even todaymonitoring the relief measures being given to the Tribal peopledisplaced by Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP). Any large scaledisplacement of the human population will bring the wrath of thepeople. Nandigram and Singur are only pointers to these newdevelopments. Therefore, there is no point in the respondent BHEL https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ listing out the various agitations over the years by the local peopledisplaced by the land acquisition and showing that at many times, theagitators indulged in large scale violence resulting in criminalcases being registered against them. Therefore, this Court is ofthe opinion that the BHEL, in their own interest, should provide fora transparent procedure in the matter of employment to the landlosers. It was rather unfortunate that they should abruptly walkout of the peace parleys conducted by the District Collector who wastrying to find a solution to the vexed problem. 40.The contention raised by the learned counsel appearing forthe respondent BHEL that the claims of the land losers have alreadybeen considered, cannot be accepted unless any credible material isproduced before a competent forum. Even the other reasons listed outby BHEL in paragraph Nos. 31 and 32 as reason for rejection do notstand to any legal scrutiny. Since the BHEL is stonewalling anyattempt to provide employment to the land losers and showing tardyprogress over the last 25 years, is rather unfortunate. Even thedecision of this Court rendered during September 1995 resulted incall letters being sent only after eleven years, i.e., in 2006. TheBHEL understood the Court orders only when it was backed up bypopular unrest and due to the intervention made by the DistrictAdministration. Over the period, the BHEL also resorted tooutsourcing of their employment through contract labour system andeven while doing so, did not make a condition that the contractorsmust engage persons from the land displaced families. 41.It is rather unfortunate that in many cases, the BHEL hadmentioned that the claimants were minors at the time of the landacquisition. But the fact of the matter is that only in 2006,backed by the Court order, they started processing the claims of theland oustees. Even if the claims are made on the basis of extendedfamily as the Government had promised job for one member from eachfamily and hence, the promise will cover the extended family. It isthe practice followed in all other acquisition proceedings also. Ifamong the family members there are quarrels, that can be resolved byconciliation and mediation. The same also applies even to thecase of adoption and such of the family partition that took placebefore the land acquisition. The question of over age cannot beput against the land oustees because the BHEL never attempted toprovide employment at an earlier point of time and allowed thematters to drift for more than two decades. Therefore, thewholesale rejection of the claims of the petitioners cannot beaccepted and all the writ petitions excepting those mentioned inparagraph 33 will have to be allowed. 42.Going by the conduct of the respondent BHEL over the lastquarter century and there being a lack of transparency, it isnecessary that the claims of the land oustees will have to beprocessed by a Screening Committee to be appointed by this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Such a procedure has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the CalcuttaPort Trust case (cited supra) and paragraph 13 of the said judgmentcan be once again, recapitulated.Para 13:".... Certainly, some person or authority will have toexamine the correctness and bona fides of those whoclaim to be uprooted persons. It is appropriate thatsuch examination is done by a Screening Committee. Sucha screening would ensure elimination of bogus claims.It is a wholesome principle which requires to beadopted in this case. Therefore, we modify the orderunder appeal and direct that the cases of therespondents will be considered by the ScreeningCommittee...." 43.Therefore, this Court hereby orders appointment of aScreening Committee comprising of the following persons:-1.The District Revenue Officer (North Arcot District) - Convener2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet3.The Tahsildar, Wallajah - Secretary4.The Additional General Manager (HR&C), BHEL,Ranipet5.The Deputy General Manager (Law), BHEL, Ranipet6.The Manager (HR), BHEL, RanipetThe meetings of the Screening Committee shall be convened by theDistrict Revenue Officer and its Secretary will be the Tahsildar,Wallajah. If any difference of opinion crops up or anyclarification is required, the same may be referred to the DistrictCollector, North Arcot District for his consideration and opinion andbe resolved accordingly. 44.The District Collector (North Arcot) is hereby directed tonotify the constitution of the Screening Committee and also giveadequate publicity to the land losers to appear before the Committeewith necessary records. The Committee shall examine the claims ofall the writ petitioners (excepting those cases which have beenrejected by this Court) within a period of three months from the dateof receipt of a copy of this order and to recommend to BHEL for grantof suitable appointments to the eligible land losers. Till the saidexercise is completed, the respondent BHEL cannot proceed with anyother appointment to the categories which the land losers areeligible. In case where some of the land oustees are not able to be given employment, therespondent BHEL shall also direct the contractors engaged by them, to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ employ those persons as was done by the directions approved in theBanwasi Seva Ashram's case (cited supra).45.In the result, (a)The following writ petitions W.P. No. 27817 of 2005; andW.P. Nos. 10955, 11035, 11037, 11044, 11046,11049, 11056, 11732, 27837, 27838 and 41184 of2006.will stand dismissed.(b)The following writ petitions which are of general naturewill stand closed in the light of the directions alreadygranted by this Court:-W.P. Nos. 34838 and 41392 of 2005; and W.P. No.27920 of 2007. (c)All the other writ petitions listed below W.P. No. 4113 of 1998;W.P. No. 19761 of 1999;W.P. Nos. 25971 and 41541 of 2005;W.P. Nos. 524 to 527, 725, 7560, 10951 to 10954,10956 to 10963, 11031 to 11034, 11036, 11038 to11043, 11045, 11047, 11048, 11050 to 11055,19765, 26133, 26134, 27829 to 27836, 41121,42147, 42148, 43708, 46929, 47876 of 2006; and W.P. Nos. 4319, 28208 and 28209 of 2007will stand disposed of in the light of the directions granted above.However, the parties are allowed to bear their own costs. Allconnected Miscellaneous Petitions will stand closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.gri https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Secretary The Government of Tamil NaduIndustries DepartmentFort St. GeorgeChennai – 92.The CollectorRanipetN.A.A. District3.The Unit HeadBHEL / BAF RanipetN.A.A. District4.The Deputy General ManagerPersonnel & Administration DepartmentBHEL / BAF RanipetN.A.A. District5.The Collector Vellore District.6.The General Manager BHEL Ranipet Vellore.7.The Manager HRIRX-RMX-GAX Bhel Sipcot(BAP) Ranipet Vellore.8.The Revenue Divisional Officer,Ranipet Vellore District.+ 60 CC to Mr. S.Ramasubramaniam & Associates Advocate SR NO.26687+ 2 CC to Mr. P.H. Manojpandian Advocate SR NO.26670+ 1 CC to Mr. B.T. Seshadri Advocate SR NO.26669+ 1 CC to Mr. G.Jeremiah Advocate SR NO.26734 Common Order in W.P. No. 4113 of 1998, etc. batchTM(CO)JJM(15.05.08)