S. Kanjana vs The Collector and The District Employment Officer

B. Rajendran, J.—The Petitioner''s grand-father lands have been acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the year 1991 for "Shanmuganathi Water Project". When the acquisition was made, the Petitioner was only 11 years old. Her father has also expired in the year 1988, even prior to the said land acquisition. Since the Petitioner was a minor at that time and her grand-father was 60 years old and her widowed mother was not properly educated, she could not avail all the benefit under G.O. Ms. No. 188, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.P) Department, dated 28.12.1976. In fact, she had applied for appointment under the special quota, which is meant for persons who have given their land for Government Scheme. The same was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner was only a grand-daughter and she cannot be a dependant as per G.O. Ms. No. 188, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.P) Department, dated 28.12.1976. Therefore, she filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. (MD). No. 5928 of 2009 and by order, dated 02.03.2010, this Court quashed the order of rejection and remanded the matter back to the authority for fresh consideration in the light of the above-said Government Order stating that it is not only meant for son or daughter, but the dependents of the land are also eligible for the benefit of the said Government Order. Subsequent to the direction of this Court, after remanding the matter back, the authorities have again passed an identical rejection order without taking into consideration the direction of this Court and without assigning any further reason except stating that she is only a grand-daughter. Hence the Petitioner has come forward with this writ petition challenging the said rejection order.

Notice of motion was ordered by this Court. Though No. counter was filed, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents specifically argued the matter on the ground that G.O. Ms. No. 188, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.P) Department, dated 28.12.1976 is very clear on the point that the persons who are entitled under the said Government Order are only the members of the family which include unmarried son and unmarried daughter and not the grand-children. Their main contention is that if at all any body is dependant upon the land is the husband, wife or unmarried children as the case may be. Therefore, they would only contend that grand-children are not eligible to the benefit of the above-said Government Order. In fact, the learned Government Advocate has also referred to a Government Letter No. 4920/B1/87-3, dated 29.02.1988 of the Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu for the clarification regarding ''family''. Therefore, their only argument was since the Petitioner is a grand-daughter, she is not eligible. In this connection, he would also further point out that as per the letter of the Commissioner, she would not come under the purview of definition of a family member and therefore, she would not be eligible to seek the remedy under the persons from whom the lands have been acquired.

Heard both parties. By consent, the main writ petition itself has taken up for disposal.

The only grievance of the Petitioner is that she is the grand-daughter of the person whose lands have been acquired for Government purpose. According to her, as per G.O. Ms. No. 188, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.P) Department, dated 28.12.1976 the family members of whose lands have been acquired have to be given a preference in respect of employment. According to her, her father died even prior to the acquisition in the year 1988 and at that time of acquisition, she was only a minor aged 11 years and after attaining the majority, she has sought for employment under the preferential quota of a member of the family whose lands have been acquired for Government purposes. Earlier, her request was rejected and the same was challenged by the Petitioner before this Court in W.P. (MD). No. 5928 of 2009 and this Court by order, dated 02.03.2010 has set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter back to the authority on the following terms:

Though the learned Government Advocate sought to support the impugned order, he is unable to point out from the said G.O., dated 28.12.1976, that it speaks about employment opportunity only to the son or daughter of the owner of the property, from whom the lands have been acquired.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and as well as learned Government Advocate for the Respondents.

It is not in dispute that the Government acquired lands from one Ayyanathevar and the Petitioner is the grand daughter through his son. The only rejection was the Petitioner is the grand daughter of the deceased Ayyanathevar, whose lands have been acquired by the Government and hence, not entitled to the benefit of the said G.O. The question that arises then for consideration is whether the rejection made by the Respondent is in consonance with G.O.Ms. No. 188, dated 28.12.1976. Before adverting to the said issue, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion in the said G.O., which is as follows:

v) Members of the family (including members of Schedule Caste/ Schedule Tribe) whose lands have been acquired for Government purposes as well as for the projects of the Public Sector Undertaking subject to the condition that preference should be given to those who are dependent for their livelihood primarily or wholly on the lands acquired and from among them to members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who may be eligible for employment.

Thus, the above G.O. makes it clear that members of the family who lands have been acquired for Government purpose or otherwise preference shall be given to those who are dependent for the livelihood primarily or only on the lands acquired who may be eligible for employment. Thus, the G.O. does not contemplate that it is meant for only the son or daughter, but it speaks about the dependents.

In view of the above stated position, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order, dated 31.10.2008 and the matter is remitted to the second Respondent and he is directed to pass orders considering G.O. referred to above. The said exercise has to be carried out within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No. costs. The writ petition is disposed of.

From the reading of the above-said order, it is very clear that this Court even at the time of setting aside the earlier rejection order has categorically stated that G.O.Ms. No. 188, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.P) Department, dated 28.12.1976 itself makes it clear that members of the family (including members of Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe) whose lands have been acquired for Government purposes as well as for the projects of the Public Sector Undertaking subject to the condition that preference should be given to those who are dependent for their livelihood primarily or wholly on the lands acquired and from among them to members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who may be eligible for employment. So that the criterion will be the family members of those who gave the land.

Thus, it is clearly clarified in the earlier order itself by stating that the said Government Order does not contemplate that it is meant only for the son or daughter, but it speaks about the dependents. Therefore, in this case, the Petitioner who was a minor grand-daughter aged 11 years at the time of acquisition and now married and she is living with the widowed mother and the grand father aged 60 years are definitely depending upon the land. This vital point was taken into consideration by this Court on the earlier occasion. But, after remand, unfortunately, in the impugned order also, as rightly pointed out by the Petitioner, the authority has only extracted the letter, dated 29.02.1988 of the Commissioner to come to a conclusion that the said Government Order will be eligible only to self, husband, wife and unmarried children. The authority had not contemplated as directed by this Court. Whether the said Government Order is eligible for the persons who are dependent for their livelihood on the lands acquired has not been discussed at all in the impugned order. The clarification letter cannot over rule the very Government Order itself. In any view of the matter, the fact remains that the authority while passing the order pursuant to the direction from this Court, has not taken into consideration at all the actual point for which the matter was remanded back.

Further more, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also brought another decision of this Court made in W.P.(MD). No. 3301 of 2010, dated 21.04.2010, wherein in an identical matter, this Court directed the authority concerned to give preference even for grand-children. In paragraph 5 of the order this Court has held as follows;

In view of the certificate granted by the third Respondent, the second Respondent is directed to consider the claim of the Petitioner and take appropriate action, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy this order.

Admittedly, in this case there was No. other claimants and the Petitioner was minor at the time of acquisition. Further more, in this case, the Tahsildar has also certified that the Petitioner is one of the legal heirs of the person whose lands have been acquired and the employment preference Certificate has also been issued to her as early as on 20.09.2007. Under those circumstances, following the decision of this Court, dated 21.04.2010 made in W.P.(MD). No. 3301 of 2010 and also considering the fact that the authority has not properly considered the matter after remand pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(MD). No. 5928 of 2009, dated 02.03.2010, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authority to consider the request of the Petitioner afresh and pass orders in tune with the judgment of this Court made in W.P.(MD). No. 3301 of 2010, dated 21.04.2010 and W.P.(MD). No. 5928 of 2009, dated 02.03.2010, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No. costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.