HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
WRIT PETITION No.586 of 2022
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the respondent No.4 dated 06.11.2020 rejecting the representation of the petitioner No.1 dated 06.10.2020 for employment of the petitioner No.2 in any major and medium irrigation and power projects under the displaced persons quota as per G.O.Ms.No.98, I & CAD (PW) dated 15.04.1986.
2. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Services-III for the respondents.
3. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and their family members belong to the village of Penubarthi which was acquired in toto by the Government for foreshore submersion of Kandaleru Reservoir of Telugu Ganga Project as per the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 in the year 1990. The joint family property of the petitioners was acquired for the said project and meager amount of compensation was paid in the name of the petitioner No.1's mother as she was the lady member of the family. At that point of time only lady members of the families in the village were given the compensation amount as there was an anti arrack movement. The petitioners' joint family property was acquired under Award No.14/93-94 dated 30.03.1994. Apart from the payment of ` 2 meager compensation amount, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.98, I&CAD (PW) dated 15.04.1986 for providing employment to the displaced persons or their children like that of the petitioners for the posts of Junior Assistants/Typists or lower posts in order to protect the displaced families from distress and financial sufferance.
4. The petitioner No.1 was born on 16.06.1966, got an intermediate qualification and belongs to BC-A community. He was placed at Sl.No.76 initially in the second seniority list of the displaced persons prepared by the respondents and it rose to the level of Sl.No.2 of the said list after lapse of so many years. Then the petitioner No.1 was called for the interview for the post of Junior Assistant on 06.01.1996, 13.01.1996 and 23.07.2007 after appearing for the written examination in the year 1995. But he was not given employment till date. Though the policy of the Government contemplates for providing an employment to at least one member of the family or their children who are displaced under the above said project and the petitioner No.1 has been going around the offices of the respondents for the last 26 years the efforts have become in vain in securing the employment at the earliest point of time after acquisition of their joint family property for the above said project. Hence in the course of time as he attained nearing age for superannuation, he made a representation on 06.10.2020 for the petitioner No.2 requesting the respondents to provide a suitable employment for him under the above said G.O.Ms.No.98, I&CAD (PW) dated 15.04.1986. But the respondent No.4 without conducting ` 3 any enquiry and examination of the said request rejected the representation of the petitioner under the impugned proceedings dated 06.11.2020. Hence, this writ petition.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Services-III submits that to provide employment for the displaced persons of the Kandaleru Reservoir, the District Selection Committee has prepared two seniority lists during the year 2008 with 168 candidates in the first list and 117 candidates in the second list and the name of the petitioner No.1 was enlisted initially at Sl.No.75 of the second seniority list for providing employment as per his turn of the seniority list subject to availability of vacancies against Roster Point of BC-A candidate. It is true that the petitioner No.1 is a displaced person of Kandaleru Reservoir and he belongs to BC-A community and he is entitled for providing employment on his turn in the 2nd seniority list subject to availability of vacancies as per the roster plan under the BC-A community for the post of Office Subordinate basing upon his educational qualification.
Learned Government Pleader further submits that as per clause-2 of the said GO, the eligible candidates for the employment under this schedule shall be the displaced persons or their dependants i.e., his/her son, daughter or spouse if there is no other earning member in the family. Accordingly, the impugned proceeding was passed by the respondent No.4 rejecting the representation of the petitioner No.1 to provide employment for the petitioner No.2 as he becomes grandson for ` 4 the mother of the petitioner No.1, who received the compensation amount for the acquisition of the joint family property and as such there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.4.
6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners referred the case of one Mr.P.Upendrachari, S/o.Krishnachari (Awardee) from Sl.No.22 of the first seniority list who was provided employment under the displaced persons quota but not joined in the post due to ill health and requested to provide employment to his son. The said request was accepted by the respondents and Mr.P.Lavanyachari, S/o.Mr.P.Upendrachari and the grand son of the awardee was given employment as Junior Assistant under the scheme. Then the learned Government Pleader in turn as a rejoinder submits that the said Mr.P.Upendrachari filed O.A.No.8367 of 2011 before the learned erstwhile Administrative Tribunal and on disposal of the said OA, the District Collector, Nellore submitted proposals to the Government vide letter dated 02.01.2012 and the Government approved through a Memo dated 12.09.2013 for giving employment to Mr.P.Lavanyachari in the place of his father as Junior Assistant under the displaced persons quota under the above said project in order to save his family from the burden. The Government while approving instructed that this case should not be taken as a precedent for any other similar cases for the present and future. Hence, the same benefit cannot be accepted to the petitioners.
` 5
7. The learned Government Pleader also relies upon the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1387 of 2011 dated 02.02.2012 wherein it was held that the grandson cannot be called as a dependant of the grandfather/land loser whose land was acquired. The dependant of a land loser is only his/her spouse, son and daughter if they continue to be non earning member of the family. If the grandsons are also considered as eligible for appointment then there will not be an end to draw a line, as great grandsons may also seek employment under the reserved 50% vacancies for the displaced families in the respective projects.
8. In the backdrop of the above said rival contentions and averments and the arguments advanced, the issue that would fall for consideration before this court is that, "Whether the impugned action of the respondent No.4 in rejecting the request of the petitioner No.1 to provide employment for the petitioner No.2 under the displaced persons quota is justified?"
9. There is no dispute with regard to the acquisition of joint family property of the petitioners for foreshore submersion of Kandaleru Reservoir of Telugu Ganga Project under which the entire village of Penumarti was acquired and meagre amount of compensation was paid in the name of mother of the petitioner No.1 as the majority of the members of women folk in the village were awarded and paid compensation for the acquisition of their properties in view of the then ` 6 prevailing anti arrack movement and the said fact was not disputed by the respondents. The respondents admitted in their counter that the petitioner No.1 is a displaced person and he is eligible to be considered for employment in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.98, I&CAD (PW) dated 15.04.1986. Though he was placed under the second seniority list at Sl.No.75 rose to the level of Sl.No.2, still he could not be appointed so far in spite of eligibility for the reasons best known to the respondents. By afflux of time he reached nearing the age of superannuation. Because of the same he made a request to the respondents for consideration of the candidature of the petitioner No.2, who is none other than the son of the petitioner No.1 for employment relying upon the very same G.O.Ms.No.98, I&CAD (PW) dated 15.04.1986 wherein it enables the displaced persons or his/her son, daughter or spouse there being no other earning member of the family to be provided with employment. Hence even as per the policy of the Government, the petitioner No.2 is also entitled to be considered as dependant and one of the members of displaced persons when the whole family lost their joint family property under the above said land acquisition proceedings. As such the impugned order dated 06.11.2020 of the respondent No.4 rejecting the request of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioner No.2 happens to be the grand son of Smt.Chandragiri Venkatamma/the mother of the petitioner No.1 in whose name the compensation amount was paid, is contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.98, I&CAD (PW) dated 15.04.1986 and amounts to giving a narrow interpretation for the definition of displaced ` 7 persons, that too when the petitioner No.1 was recognised himself as a displaced person, the question of rejecting his request to extend the benefit of the above said GO does not arise.
10. In view of the same, the judgment relied upon by the learned Government Pleader for the respondents in W.A.No.1387 of 2011 dated 02.02.2012 has no application in this case as it was the grandfather who was recognised as land loser in that case and grandson sought for employment which was not considered therein. Even on the ground of discrimination, the petitioners' request is liable to be considered as one Mr.P.Lavanyachari was given employment in similar circumstances by the respondents herein. Non-extension of the same benefit to the case of the petitioner No.2 herein is nothing but discrimination.
11. For all these reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the Office Order No.SE/SSLC&SBC/NLR/AB/Supdt/A.2/D.21993M of the respondent No.4 dated 06.11.2020 is set aside. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner No.2 for employment in any major and medium irrigation and power projects under the displaced persons quota as per G.O.Ms.No.98, I & CAD (PW) dated 15.04.1986 by accepting the representations of the petitioner No.1 dated 06.10.2020, 01.01.2021 and 05.01.2021 respectively. The process of providing suitable employment for the petitioner No.2 as per his eligibility and qualification shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months from the date ` 8 of receipt of this order. It can be either temporary or permanent subject to availability of a clear vacancy.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending if any shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________________
JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
March , 2022
LMV
` 9
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
WRIT PETITION No.586 of 2022
March , 2022
LMV