AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
This intra-Court Appeal is directed against final order dated 04.05.2018, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 885 of 2013. The impugned order is reproduced below:-
“ The land of the petitioner’s family was acquired for public purposes. The Sate Government has framed a Policy whereby the employment was to be given to the members of family whose land was acquired. Similarly situate persons, as per Annexure No. 7 to the petition, have been given the public employment.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent to consider the case of petitioner also for public employment on the analogy of Annexure No. 7 within ten weeks from today.
All pending application stand disposed of. ”
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that all project affected persons were given market value for the land acquired from them, and other benefits as well, as per Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and persons, who were eligible for benefit under the Rehabilitation Policy, were also given agricultural land, or residential plots. He further submits that the predecessor of writ petitioner (respondent no. 1 herein) had received various benefits, which were available to project affected persons, therefore, their claim for employment was without any basis. He submits that, in the absence of any Policy for giving employment to the project affected persons, the Writ Petition filed by the appellant, could not have been allowed. He further submits that reliance placed by the writ petitioner/ respondent no. 1 on Annexure No. 7 to the Writ Petition was not correct, as the persons named in the said list were appointed pursuant to a limited selection from amongst project affected persons. Since the writ petitioner/ respondent no. 1 had not participated in the said selection, therefore, they cannot have any grievance against appointment of persons, who appeared and qualified in the process of selection.
We find some substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. The writ petitioner/ respondent no. 1 cannot claim parity with persons appointed in a limited selection, which was held for project affected persons, as the writ petitioner/ respondent no. 1 did not participate in the said selection. We, therefore, modify the impugned judgment, and provide that, if the writ petitioner/ respondent no. 1 makes an application seeking employment, as project affected persons, before the General Manager, Human Resource, THDC, his request shall be considered sympathetically, as per applicable Policy, within six months from the date of receipt of such application.