Sunday, 03, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Suresh S/O Tikaram Pustode vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 684 Bom

Citation : 2003 Latest Caselaw 684 Bom
Judgement Date : 23 June, 2003

Bombay High Court
Suresh S/O Tikaram Pustode vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 23 June, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004 (2) BomCR 233, 2004 (1) MhLj 157
Author: R Kochar
Bench: R Kochar, S Kharche

JUDGMENT

R.J. Kochar, J.

1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties.

2. This petition deserves to be disposed of at this stage itself as the petitioner has been knocking the doors of the State Government on and from 20-3-1997 for compassionate employment under the Government Resolution No. EM/1080/35/96-A dated 21-1-1980 issued by the General Administration Department wherein it has been provided that the State shall provide a job to one of the family members of the Project Affected Persons. There is no dispute that the land of the petitioner's father was acquired for the purpose of Itiadoh Project for Constructing the canals. There is also no dispute that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to get a job under the policy enunciated by the welfare State of Maharashtra under the aforesaid Government Resolution. No doubt, on paper, the said policy appears to be very laudable, but in practice, the petitioner and many like him are waiting to get the fruits of this welfare policy of the welfare State. If the State Government acquires the land of the people and if they are assured that at least one member of the family of the land owner shall be given employment, the State Government must honour its own commitment which it gives at the time of taking away the valuable source of income of the people. Indeed, even a job cannot be a substitute for the land, for the person getting employment gets retired at some point of time, but the land continues to yield for generations and, therefore, we say that a job on compassionate ground is no substitute at all for the land. However, the "public purpose" cannot be made to suffer. By evolving the policy of providing jobs to such deprived project affected persons, the State Government has to try to soften the rigor of the loss of such families who are deprived of the source of livelihood. The petitioner was, no doubt, issued "Certificate-A" by the District Rehabilitation Officer, Bhandara that he is an eligible project affected person entitled to get a job under the aforesaid Government Resolution. Beyond granting such paper certificate to the petitioner, the petitioner has, as yet; not been given a job though he is otherwise eligible and qualified. The petitioner is HSC D.Ed, and is eligible to be employed as a Primary Teacher. He has to support his old mother and his younger brother. He had applied along with the aforesaid certificate for job of a Primary Teacher on 25th March 1997. Along with the application, he had annexed eight certificates. The concerned officer had no courtesy even to send acknowledgment to his application. After having waited for a long period, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for direction to the State Government to employ him as a Primary Teacher.

3. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has become so desperate that he is prepared to accept any job which is available or which would be made available to him. We can very well visualise, indeed, that the petitioner and his family including his old mother are starving and are reduced to the status of destitute on account of deprivation of their land for the public purpose.

4. The respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit. He has tried to give statistic of unemployed persons who are waiting in queue for such employment. We are not at all interested in the waiting list of the respondent No. 2 and we are not at all interested to know that there are 799 project affected persons. It is for the State Government to rehabilitate all such project affected persons within a very short and reasonable period and not make them wait for years together. The phenomena getting breadless is not unknown to the State Authorities. They ought to make a provision to employ such people before they initiate the land acquisition proceedings. The respondent No. 2 has, no doubt, given assurance after lapse of about six years to the petitioner that he will take positive steps for his appointment as a Primary Teacher within the jurisdiction of the answering respondent immediately on the availability of post. Nothing can be more vague than such ministerial assurances which will not feed the petitioner and his family.

5. The State Government must honour its commitment given in the Government Resolution and they must do it forthwith in this case and in other cases they must do within a reasonable period of six months from the date of acquisition of land. The routine reply of the State Authorities that the land owners have been awarded compensation cannot be accepted as it is a case of compulsory acquisition under law and not voluntary sale of the land by the land owners. So grant of compensation is no reply to the demand made by such land owners to provide a job to them, as assured under the Government Resolution.

6. We, therefore, direct the respondents to provide a job or employment to the petitioner either as a Primary Teacher wherever the post is available or even as a Clerk in any office if the post is available and if no such posts are available, they will have to create supernumerary post and honour their commitment in the Government Resolution. Failure to honour such commitment by the State certainly shakes confidence in the mind of the people. The endeavour of the State must always be to maintain its commitment. The concerned Authorities shall provide suitable job either of a Primary Teacher or of a Clerk either in a existing vacancy or by creating supernumerary post within a period of four weeks from today failing which we will take a serious view of the matter if we receive a complaint from the petitioner that this order has not been complied with. Learned counsel for petitioner at this stage points out that certain posts of Primary Teacher (Shikshan Sevak) are advertised by the Collector, Bhandara. If that is so, petitioner will be given priority by the concerned Authorities. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Learned AGP fairly assures that she will immediately forward copy of this order to the concerned Authorities for necessary action.

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter