High CourtsSingle Bench

P. Thirumal vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 1 July 2013 · Citation: (2013) 7 MLJ 656

HON’BLE JUDGES
D. Hariparanthaman, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 17586 of 2013 and M.P. No. 1 of 2013

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

27 paragraphs · 666 words

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—With the consent of both parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal, as the matter lies in narrow compass. Heard both sides.

2.

The land comprised in S. No. 70-1B, Kondasamanahali Village, Dharmapuri to an extent of 0.47.0 Hectares belong to the family of the petitioner and the same was acquired by the Government for the purpose of laying road for Government Sugarcane factory during the year 2003. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri issued preference Certificate for giving employment, as land loser, to the family of the petitioner as per G.O.Ms. No. 188, P&AR Department dated 28.12.1976. The petitioner sought to register the same with the third respondent. The third respondent refused to register the same by the impugned order dated 15.3.2013.

3.

The impugned order is based on the Government Letter No. 4920/B11/87-3 of the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Employment and Services Department dated 29.2.1988. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 15.3.2013 of the third respondent to the second respondent. The second respondent dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner by an order dated 4.6.2013. The order dated 15.3.2013 as well as the order dated 4.6.2013 are questioned in this Writ Petition.

4.

The order of the third respondent dated 15.3.2013 is based on the Government letter dated 29.2.1988. The said Government letter is extracted hereunder:

Government of Tamilnadu

Letter No. 4920/B1/87-3

dated 29.2.1988

From

Thiru G.R. Srinivasan, I.A.S.

Commissioner and Secretary to Government

Employment and Services Department

Fort St. George, Madras 9

To

The Director of Employment and Training

Madras 5

Sir,

Sub: Employment-Employment Assistance to families displaced on account of acquisition of land procedure of recruitment -Certain clarification - reg.

Ref: 1) G.O.Ms. No. 188, Personnel and Administrative Reforms dated 28.12.1976

2) G.O.Ms. No. 656, Labour and Employment dated 29.6.78

3) Your letter No. W/85999/86

dated 12.3.87.

----

I am directed to invite attention to your letter third cited and to state that as long as the person seeking to register himself in the Employment Exchange is the person whose land has been acquired or is a member of the family of that persons (family defined in the usual sense, self, husband, wife, unmarried children) he is eligible for the concession under G.O.Ms. No. 188, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 28.12.76. No time limit is necessary. However, the application should be supported by certificate from revenue authorities regarding the fact of acquisition and relationship of the applicant to the land owner.

2.

As regards G.O.Ms. No. 656, Labour and Employment dated 29.6.78, it is for the concerned Public Sector Undertakings to provide the assistance as contemplated and the Employment Exchanges do not enter the picture.

5.

The aforesaid letter places restriction for employment to the family of the land loser by stating that children of the land loser should be unmarried for claiming the benefit under G.O.Ms. No. 188. The said letter dated 29.2.1988 refers to G.O.Ms. No. 188.

6.

I have perused the G.O.Ms. No. 188, P&AR Department dated 28.2.1976. There is no such prohibition in the G.O.Ms. No. 188. The very purpose of G.O.Ms. No. 188 is to provide employment to one of the family members of the land loser, whose the lands were acquired for establishing the factory for the Government.

7.

In my view, the letter dated 29.2.1988 is opposed to the very purpose of G.O.Ms. No. 188 and the same is highly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. I have no hesitation to quash the same. Accordingly, the Government Letter No. 4920/B11/87-3 dated 29.2.1988 of the first respondent is quashed, as it is opposed to G.O.Ms. No. 188. The consequential orders dated 15.3.2013 of the third respondent and dated 4.6.2013 of the second respondent are also quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed with a direction to the third respondent to register the preference certificate dated 11.4.2009 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri forthwith. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.