Chandragiri Veeraswamy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1342 AP

          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

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

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

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

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

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

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





      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN




           WRIT PETITION No.586 of 2022




                    March       , 2022
LMV