K.Indramoorthy v. Tamilnadu Newsprint & Papers Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 22.04.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.BASHAW.P.No.802 of 2000K.Indramoorthy... PetitionerVs1. The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Newsprint & Papers Limited, 16, Whites Road, Chennai.2. The Deputy General Manager (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Newsprint Limited, Kagithapuram & Post, Karur Taluk& District.3. The Special Tahsildar (LA), Tamil Nadu Newsprint & Papers Mill Project, Division-I, Karur.... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2ndrespondents to appoint the petitioner herein in Tamil NaduNewsprint and Paper Mills, Punzhai Pugaloor Village, Karur Talukand District according to the petitioner's qualification.For Petitioner : Mr.K.RajaFor Respondents : Mr.T.S.Gopalan 1 and 2For Respondent -3: Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, Government AdvocateO R D E RThe petitioner has come forward with this petition seekingfor the relief of direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents toappoint the petitioner herein in Tamil Nadu Newsprint and PaperMills, Punzhai Pugaloor Village, Karur Taluk and Districtaccording to the petitioner's qualification. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The petitioner claims to be the adopted son of one Mr.Rajalingam. The father of the petitioner was having 0.11 cents ofagricultural land in Survey No.659, Punzhai Pugaloor Village,Karur Taluk and Karur District and cultivating the said land forthe livelihood of their family. In the year 1982, the said landwas acquired by the 3rd respondent for the purpose of establishingthe Tamil Nadu News Print and Paper Mills. Several other personslands were also acquired for the above said purpose. At the timeof acquisition of said lands, a promise was made to the landowners whose lands were acquired for establishing of the said Millthat one member from the family would be provided job according totheir qualification in the said Mill by the 1st and the 2ndrespondents. The petitioner made representations dated 15.8.1998and 12.7.1999 seeking for the above said relief of appointment onthe above said ground of acquisition of the lands belonging to hisfather. As there is no response from the respondents, thepetitioner has come forward with this present petition for therelief stated above.3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contendedthat the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on the ground ofacquisition of the land belonging to his father on the basis ofG.O.Ms.No.656 Labour and Employment Department dated 29.6.1978.It is further contended that the said land of the petitioner'sfather was acquired in the year 1982 and as such, the petitioneris entitled to seek the benefit under the said Government Orderwhich has come into force even prior to raising of the issueinvolved in this matter. The learned counsel would further submitthat the land of the petitioner's father was acquired for thepurpose of establishing the Mill only on the promise for providinga job for one of the members of the family. It is submitted thatinspite of such promise made by the respondents 1 and 2, thepetitioner has been deprived from getting a job as he is entitledon the basis of the claim provided under G.O.Ms.No.656 Labour andEmployment Department dated 29.6.1978. It is pointed out by thelearned counsel for the petitioner that similarly placed familymembers from whom lands were acquired by the 3rd respondent havebeen provided jobs. But the petitioner has been deprived of suchopportunity of getting the job without any valid reason.Therefore, it is contended that the respondents 1 and 2 may bedirected to provide the appointment as per the entitlement of thepetitioner.4.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for therespondents 1 and 2 contended that the petitioner cannot seek therelief of appointment as a matter of right by invoking theprovision under G.O.Ms.No.656 Labour and Employment Departmentdated 29.6.1978. It is further contended that the petitioner is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bound to establish that his family was displaced due to theacquisition of the land belonging to his father and there is noother source of income to make their livelihood. The learnedcounsel would further contend that the respondents 1 and 2 havenot received any representation as alleged by the petitioner forseeking the relief of appointment. It is submitted that it is theburden of the petitioner to prove first of all that he is theadopted son by producing the legal documents. Secondly, thepetitioner is also bound to prove that he is possessing therequired qualification for any appointment in the Mill of therespondents 1 and 2. The learned counsel for the respondents alsoplaced reliance on the following decisions of this Court insupport of his contention:1. Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Chennaiand another Vs. Arulnathan and others 2004 (4)L.L.N.163.2. Unreported judgements of this Court in the Unionof India represented by the Chairman, Atomic EnergyCommission, Anushakti Bhavan, Mumbai-39 and another Vs.E.Shanmugavelu, W.A.No.1116 of 2007 dated 24.10.2007 and3. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (AGovernment of India Undertaking), Project Site,Kudankulam-627 106, Radhapuram Taluk, TirunelveliDistrict, through its Project Director W.A.No.401 of2007 dated 30.10.2007.5.Learned Government Advocate also heard on thesubmissions made by the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for therespondents 1 and 2.6.I have heard the rival contentions put forth on eitherside and also perused the materials available on record.7.The fact remains that the petitioner is entitled to seekthe relief of appointment in the Mill of the respondents 1 and 2on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.856 Labour and Employment dated29.6.1978 provided the petitioner produces acceptable evidence andrecords to substantiate his claim that he is the adopted son ofthe deceased, from whom the agricultural land was acquired. It isnot disputed by the respondents that the land of one Rajalingamwas acquired by the third respondent to an extent of 0.11 centsfor the purpose of establishing the Mill of the respondents 1 and2. The said person was already paid with the compensation. Therespondents 1 and 2 made it clear in the counter affidavit thatthe said Rajalingam made a declaration to the Tahsildar, the thirdrespondent herein, that his family consists of his wife Arukkani https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and daughter Rajeswari and there is no mention about thepetitioner in the said declaration stating that he is the adoptedson of the deceased Rajalingam. Therefore it is the responsibilityand obligation of the petitioner to first establish before theauthorities concerned that he is the adopted son of the saidRajalingam from whom the said land was acquired by the thirdrespondent herein. This Court is of the considered view that thepetitioner is also liable to establish his qualification for anyappointment from the respondents 1 and 2. 8. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that thepetitioner cannot claim any appointment as a matter of right onthe ground of acquisition of the land as the petitioner has novested right to claim an appointment on the ground of acquisitionof land. It is relevant to refer certain decisions of the SupremeCourt on this aspect.9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Buta Prasad Kumbhar and othersV. Steel Authority of India Ltd., and others reported in 1995Supp. (2) Supreme Court Cases 225 held as follows :"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 werepaid 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the other way. Acceptance of such a demand would beagainst Article 14."10. A Division Bench of this Court in Chairman, T.N.E.B. V.Arulnathan reported in 2004 (4) L.L.N. 163 following the principlelaid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Buta Prasad Kumbhar's caseheld that "the similarly placed claimants like the petitioner donot have any fundamental right to be provided with employment bythe appellant solely on the ground that their lands have beenacquired" and further held that "the employment to be providedonly to persons who had been "displaced" and who had beendependent on those lands as their sole means of livelihood subjectto the condition that they fulfil the criteria that they areeligible for employment".11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Punjab State Electricity BoardV. Malkiat Singh reported in 2005 (1) L.L.N. 33 held as follows :"5. .... The respondent has got compensation forhis land, which was acquired. The scheme givingappointment on priority basis was only in the natureof concession to eligible candidates which therespondent could not claim as a matter or right havingtaken compensation amount for his land which wasrequired, more so when he did not fulfill thenecessary requirements under the revised scheme...."12. The above well-settled principle of law laid down by theHon'ble Apex Court makes it crystal clear that it is the burden ofthe petitioner to establish his claim by fulfilling the conditionthat he is the legal heir of the deceased owner of the land andfurther to establish that he comes under the category of thepersons who had been displaced and who had been dependent on thoselands as their sole means of livelihood. 13. It is open to the petitioner to prefer a representationto the respondents 1 and 2 within a period of two weeks from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order and in the event ofreceipt of such representation of the petitioner, the respondents1 and 2 shall consider the same in the light of the principleslaid down by the Apex Court, as pointed out earlier, in thedecisions cited supra and to pass order on merits and inaccordance with law within a period of two months from the date ofreceipt of the said representation of the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrartsi/ggTo1. The Special Tahsildar (LA), Tamil Nadu Newsprint & Papers Mill Project, Division-I, Karur.1 cc to Mr.K. Raja, SR. 167011 cc to M/s. T.S. Gopalan, SR. 168541 cc to Government Pleader, SR. 17768 W.P.No.802 of 2000MRD (CO)kk 20/5