'People Love Their Land Like Their Mother', State Must Fulfill Promise Of Rehabilitation, Employment After Acquisition: AP High Court

A Division Bench of Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma explained that while compassionate appointment for land displaced persons cannot be claimed as a matter of right, a Government scheme specifically formulated for rehabilitation and employment of a member of the uprooted family to ensure social security binds the State to implement the same in true letter and spirit. The Division Bench further stated,

“The Governments itself framing the policies for providing jobs to the displaced persons whose lands were acquired for various public purposes, to ventilate the grievances and the hardships being faced by them with a laudable intention by making certain promises to those displaced persons. Then, it is the duty and responsibility of the State Authorities to fulfil the promises made in such policies without raising any technicalities or on flimsy grounds. What the State authorities have to consider is (1) whether the applicant is really displaced person or dependant of the displaced family or not? (2) Whether the candidate is eligible and suitable as per the respective schemes? Besides this, it is the duty and responsibility of the State Authorities to fulfil all promises made to the displaced persons within time frame to provide immediate rehabilitation to them to overcome from the hardships they have to face immediately after displacement from their lands.”

The Court added,

“In our society, no one can forget the attachment of people with their lands. Nobody, normally, will be ready to lose their lands, as they love it like their mother. But, when such lands are required for public purposes, though the owners of the lands are not agreeing to give their lands, Government is acquiring the lands as per Land Acquisition Act and the political executive is making several promises, like to provide employment to one member in the displaced persons family, as they are deprived of livelihood. If such promises are not fulfilled within reasonable time by raising technicalities and on flimsy grounds, the people loose trust on the State Executive. It makes them painful and then, it may leads to unrest. As such, State has to avoid such situations by implementing the rehabilitation schemes properly and promptly.”

Facts:

The observations were made in an appeal against an order of a Single Judge, whereby, the appellant State (respondent in the writ petition) was directed to consider the case of the respondents (petitioners in the writ petition) and accordingly consider their case of compassionate employment as per the Government scheme.

The respondents were family members of displaced persons whose lands were acquired by the Government for construction of the Telugu Ganga Project in 1984, however, they were actually displaced in 2005. They sought compassionate appointment in light of a Government Order of 1986, through which the Government had formulated a scheme, whereby it promised rehabilitation to displaced persons or their dependents, whose lands were acquired. The 1986 GO specifically stated that 50% of the vacancies of categories equivalent to Junior Assistants/Typists and cadres below arising in Major & Medium Irrigation and Power Projects shall be occupied by displaced families or their dependents, and the candidates eligible for appointment shall be the displaced persons or their children or spouses on account of no other earning member in the family. However, while the GO of 1986 prescribed that applications for such employment must be filed within one year from the date of actual displacement, a Memo issued in 1987 relaxed the one-year condition.

Although their names were included in a Master Eligibility List of 2009— from which many similarly displaced persons (even those placed below the respondents) were later appointed under the displaced persons category, the respondents' representation for compassionate appointment submitted in 2018 was rejected in 2019 by the Superintending Engineer (Appellant 2) on the ground that they had surpassed the cut-off date, which was stated to be 18.09.2006, and had also failed to submit requisite documents such as, original proof of award, no earning members in the family, financial status certificate, educational qualifications certificates, dependants certificates and so on.

In 2019, the respondents filed a writ petition challenging the proceedings of Appellant 2 claiming that they were entitled to compassionate appointment under the GO of 1986. They also argued that the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had previously passed orders in favour of similarly situated persons directing the State to consider their applications, and in light of the same, the respondents were also eligible for the same relief. These orders were challenged by the State before the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Supreme Court– both of which dismissed the challenges and upheld the Tribunal's orders.

In defence, the State argued that the petitioners were actually displaced in 2005, and should have submitted their applications within the period of one year from the date of displacement, i.e. in 2006. Since the petitioners submitted their applications seeking employment long after the cutoff date, which was stated to be 18.09.2006, it was argued that they were not entitled for employment under the displaced persons quota.

A Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to submit relevant documents and further directed the State to thereafter consider their cases. Aggrieved, the State challenged the Single Judge order.

Thus, the Division Bench had to determine whether the one-year time stipulated in the 1986 GO was applicable to the respondents and whether the appellants could reject their claim on the ground that it was time-barred, contrary to the State Government decision relaxing one year time frame in its 1987 Memo.

Court's Finding:

At the outset, the Court took note of the fact that as and when several displaced persons and their dependent family members were denied benefit of providing jobs as per the 1986 GO, they approached the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on several occasions and the State Authorities were thereafter directed to consider the case of the displaced persons without reference to one-year period stipulated in 1986 GO and to provide jobs as per the policy. These orders also withstood challenges in the Composite High Court and Supreme Court.

Thus, in light of the fact that the respondents were similarly situated, the Court observed that the State cannot take the stand that their claim was time-barred. Thus, the action of the State in rejecting the claim of the respondents on the ground of application being time-barred was held to be untenable.

With respect to the State's argument that respondents were not entitled to compassionate appointment, the Court held,

“We are very conscious that appointments on compassionate grounds, whether it is meant for land displaced persons or for death of an employee in harness, whatever it may be, it is settled general principles of law that no one can claim it as a matter of right. But, when a policy/scheme is formulated by the State for rehabilitation to provide employment to a member of the displaced/uprooted family to ensure social security, the State authorities are duty bound to implement the policy/scheme in true letter and spirit and beneficiaries under said policy/scheme are entitled to claim the benefits provided under the scheme and the terms of the policy can be enforced.”

The Court thus upheld the Single Judge order and dismissed the appeal.

Case Details:

Case Number: WRIT APPEAL No.356 of 2023

Case Title: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. RAJOLA JAGANNADHA REDDY AND ORS

Click Here To Read/Download Order