Murugammal Chinnusamy v. The Principal Secretary to Government

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 06.03.2024 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.Nos.559, 562, 564, 567, 568, 621, 622, 623, 627, 675, 677, 681, 682, 684, 683, 685, 687, 689 & 691 of 2023 WP.No.559 of 2023 Murugammal Chinnusamy ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamilnadu, Energy Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009

2.The Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity Board/TANGEDCO, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002

3.The Chief Engineer(Personnel), Tamilnadu Electricity Board/TANGEDCO, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002

4.The Chief Engineer, Mettur Thermal Power Station, TANGEDCO, Mettur, Mettur dam, Salem District 636 406

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents authorities herein to provide employment to the petitioner's grandson C.Gowtham S/o.C.Chandran in line with the orders given by the authorities on various dates.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thyagarajan For Respondents For R2 to 4 : Mr.A.P.Venkatesh Prasad for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co For R1 : Mr.V.Veluchamy,

Additional Government Pleader COMMON ORDER These writ petitions have been filed for direction to the respondents to provide employment to the legal heirs of the petitioners.

¶2The petitioners owned lands and they were acquired by the respondents for Mettur Thermal Power Project, Mettur Dam, Salem District in the year 2006. At the time of acquiring the land, they were given assurance to provide compensation and employment to the land owners or legal heirs as per the scheme formulated by the respondents. All the lands were acquired by the respondents for Mettur Thermal Power Project for the purpose of Upper Ash Dyke of Mettur Thermal Power Project in the year 2006. There were totally 358 residential houses and the lands are belonging to villages of S.Pudhureddiyur and Chinnakavur, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. The scheme was formulated by the respondents Board on 24.08.2002 and the same was approved by the second respondent by its order dated 06.01.2014. As rehabilitation measures and the benefits provided are compensation, alternative house sites to 358 families and employment to 358 families. The respondents gave assurance to each family member to provide compensation, alternative housesite and employment to the land owners or legal heirs as per the scheme which was formulated by the respondents. Accordingly, they were paid compensation and they were provided residential or alternative house sites with all amenities.

2.1 As per the proceedings dated 02.06.2003 on the file of the fourth respondent, in order to provide employment to 358 displaced families, they have to submit joint undertaking affidavits from two villages i.e. S.Pudureddiyur and Chinnakavur. However, they were not provided employment as per the scheme. According to the petitioners, it is not possible to file undertaking affidavit. Some of the beneficiaries filed writ petitions before this Court in WP.No.9010 of 2012, etc batch. All the writ petitions were disposed of with directions to get Land Loser Certificates from Revenue Divisional Officer, instead of joint undertaking affidavits and on submission of the said certificates, employment would be provided by the respondents by an order dated 13.06.2012. Contempt petitions were filed for non compliance of the said directions before this Court in Cont.P.Nos.488, 1149 and 1151 of 2015. Thereafter, the petitioners had submitted their representations seeking employment. In the contempt petitions, this Court directed the respondents to provide employment for all 358 displaced families as per the scheme. Subsequently, 162 beneficiaries were provided employment and the remaining 196 persons have not been provided employment. Therefore, 91 beneficiaries have filed sub applications to implead themselves as petitioners in the contempt petition in Cont.P.No.488 of 2015.

2.2 In pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the second respondent issued direction to the fourth respondent to provide employment by granting age relaxation and also to provide employment to grandson, granddaughter, etc. Once again, this Court by an order dated

18.11.2019 in Cont.P.No.488 of 2015 directed the fourth respondent to provide employment on the basis of the approval of the second respondent dated 16.12.2017. However, the said order was also not complied with. The respondents filed appeal as against the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in Cont.P.No.488 of 2015. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 08.06.2022, held that the order passed in the contempt petition is not sustainable by entertaining the sub applications and directed the beneficiaries to make claim by filing separate writ petitions or suit for their claim. In view of the said order, the petitioners have now filed these writ petitions.

¶3Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶4On perusal of the counter filed by the respondents and on hearing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side, revealed that the Government of Tamilnadu in the year 1978, passed order in GO.Ms.No.656 dated 19.06.1978 thereby issued directions to frame a scheme to provide employment to a member of the family whose source of income if affected owing to acquisition of lands for setting up projects of Public Sector Undertakings. In pursuant to the said order, in the year 1980, the Tamilnadu Electricity Board has passed Board proceedings No.24 dated 10.01.1980 thereby framed a scheme for providing employment. It was applicable to the families whose source of income was affected by acquisition and family member i.e. land owner, spouse, son, daughter or adopted son, would be provided employment. After passing several orders by this Court and instructions, the respondents passed Board proceedings No.14 dated 11.07.2018 framing a comprehensive guideline for considering the cases of land givers across all projects in an uniformed manner. The lands were acquired for setting up Mettur Thermal Power Station from the year 1982 onwards. In the year 2004, for the Upper Ash dyke Extension Project, further lands were acquired. The claim of the petitioners is that their lands were acquired in the year 2006 for setting up Upper Ash Dyke Extension Project and as such, they are entitled for employment to a member of their families.

¶5Though some of the persons approached this Court after submitting their representations seeking employment under the above said scheme and filed writ petitions before this Court, the petitioners had not made any claim or representation seeking employment for long years after acquisition of their respective lands in the year 2006. There is delay of more than 10 to 16 years for making their claim for employment. The petitioners' extent of land, relationship of the original land owner and the delay in representation are as follows: WP.No. Extent of land (Sq.ft.) Employment for Delay in Represen-tation (years) 2421.88 Grandson 2271.19 Son 3729.69 Grandson 2325 Grandson 1377.78 Grandson 2174.31 Grandson 1334.72 Grandson 2572.57 Son 1410.07 Granddaughter 2755.56 Granddaughter 1883.68 Daughter in law 2561.81 Grandson

177.50 Mandhaveli Poramboke Daughter in law 11732.27 Grandson 4165.63 Grandson 3498.27 Grandson 4413.2 Grandson 4305.56 Grandson WP.No. Extent of land (Sq.ft.) Employment for Delay in Represen-tation (years) 1399.31 Son

¶6As per the board proceedings No.14 dated 11.07.2018, an eligible applicant ought to have applied for employment within period of three years from the date of acquisition of their respective lands. Admittedly, the petitioners did not seek any employment within a period of three years from the date of acquisition of their respective lands i.e. from the year 2006. It shows that the families were able to sustain for these long years. It would also go to show that their livelihood is not depending solely on the lands acquired for the projects.

¶7The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the second respondent granted approval thereby directed the respondents 3 and 4 to provide employment to the family members dated 16.12.2017. On perusal of the said approval order dated 16.12.2017, it reads as follows: nkl;L:h; mdy; kpd; epiya rhk;gy; vhp tphpthf;fg;gzpf;fhf epyk; ifafg;gLj;jg;gl;ljpy;. W.P.No.559oofo2023,oetcobatch ePjpkd;w mtkjpg;g[ tHf;Ffs; Kot[ bgwhkYk; g[jpa tHf;Ffs; bjhlh;tij jtph;f;Fk; bghUl;Lk;. 15/05/2017 md;W ,Wjpahd jPh;khdpf;fg;gl;l ehshf vLj;Jf; bfhz;L ifafg;gLj;jg;gl;l epy chpikahsh;fspd; ntiy tha;g;g[ mspg;gJ bjhlh;ghf jiyth; kw;Wk; nkyhz;ik ,af;Feh; mth;fs; fPH;f;fz;lthW cj;jut[ mspj;Js;shh;/ m/ ePjpkd;w cj;jutpd;go 15/05/2017 ,Wjpahd jPh;khdpf;fg;gl;l ehshf vLj;Jf;bfhz;L epy chpikahsh;fs; j';fspd; thhpRjhuh;fspy; ntiy tha;g;g[ nfhhp Vw;fdnt cWjpbkhHp gj;jpuk; mspj;jpUe;jhYk; 15/05/2017f;Fs; ghpe;Jiu bra;a[k; ntW thhpRjhuh;fSf;F (kfd;. kfs;. ngud;. ngj;jp. kUkfs;) Vida jFjpfis 15/05/2017 md;W (18 taJ g{h;j;jpaile;jpUj;jy;. 8k; tFg;g[ njh;r;rp) epiwt[ bra;a[k; gl;rj;jpy; ntiy tha;g;g[ tH';fyhk; M/ epy chpikahsh;fs; j';fSf;nfh my;yJ thhpRjhuh;fSf;nfh ntiy tH';ff; nfhug;gl;lth;fs; 35 taij fle;jth;fshf ,Ug;gpDk; tajpid jsh;j;jp ntiy tha;g;g[ tH';fyhk;/ 2/ vdnt nkw;fz;l cj;jutpw;fpz';f Jhpj eltof;if nkw;bfhs;Sk;go nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/ j';fs; cz;ika[s;s (m/bt/utp) jiyikg; bghwpahsh;-gzpaikg;g[

¶8Subsequently, order has been passed by this Court in contempt petitions in Cont.P.No.488, 1149 & 1151 of 2015 dated

18.11.2019, wherein the following directions were issued: As per the details furnished by the respondent Corporation, so far, 162 persons have been given employment. An affidavit has been filed by the Chief Engineer (Personnel) of the respondent Corporation stating that out of 92 persons, who are before this Court, 2 persons have been found to be eligible and the applications of 4 other persons will also be considered. As far as the balance 86 persons are concerned, they are ineligible and the reasons, 11 in number, have been enumerated. A perusal of the said reasons would reveal that except reason no (viii) and (xi), the other reasons have been rightly quoted by the respondent Corporation to reject the applications.

¶2As far as the applications which have been rejected quoting reason no. (viii) are concerned, namely, 'nomination is not within the definition of 'family',' the same have to be reconsidered in view of the decision taken by the Chairman as communicated through letter dated 16.12.2017 by the Chief Engineer (Personnel). The decision of the Chairman is to give employment to the grandchildren of the landlosers. It is also pointed out that one R. Ranjith Kumar, grandson of one of the landlosers had been given employment. Therefore, the rejection of the applications of 46 persons stating that the nominations made by them do not come within the definition of 'family' and they are only grandchildren is not acceptable. Their applications have to be reconsidered in view of the decision of the Chairman of the respondent Corporation as spelt out in the letter dated 16.12.2017.

¶3As far as five applications which have been rejected based on reason (xi), i.e, being overaged as on

15.05.2017 is concerned, the said applications also require to be reconsidered. Since the lands were taken by virtue of land acquisition proceedings, as early as in 2002, the delay has debarred many persons on the ground of overage from getting employment. It is the fault of the respondent Corporation and therefore, either age relaxation should be given or some other nominees should be given.

¶4A decision has to be taken in this regard and an affidavit has to be filed by the Chief Engineer (Personnel) within two weeks.

¶5Post on 02.12.2019.

¶6It is made clear that the case of 91 persons who are not before this Court would not form part of this order. However, if any of the aforesaid 91 persons, who are not before this Court, withdraws the proceedings initiated by them, the same can be considered by the respondent Corporation.

¶9Aggrieved by the same, the respondents preferred appeal in Cont.A.No.1 of 2020, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by order dated 08.06.2022 set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal. While allowing the appeal, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court observed that in the affidavit filed by the first respondent stated that that fearing contempt proceedings, the TNEB has been meekly complying with the directions issued by this Court from time to time. We pause for a moment, not only to ponder over this averment, but to also introspect. The power of contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and the Contempt of Courts Act is meant to subserve the administration of justice. Contempt jurisdiction cannot be used like a bull in a china shop to instill fear in the minds of litigants to secure compliance. Power to punish for contempt is given to Constitutional Courts in the fond hope that there would not be any misuse. Fearing imprisonment, if bureaucrats were to bend backward and forward before us, can we keep bulldozing them into submission? The answer to this question is an emphatic ?no?. The entitlement of these 33 persons who have been impleaded as petitioners for getting employment cannot be tested in the contempt proceedings, when the Damocles-sword of imprisonment is kept hanging over the head of the appellants. The entitlements of the 33 persons seeking employment should have been first tested either in a writ petition or a suit but definitely not in a contempt petition filed by a third party. Therefore, the communications and the board proceedings were issued in order to comply with the directions issued by this Court from time to time. On perusal of the board proceedings No.14 dated

11.07.2018, also revealed that the appointment shall be given to self or to wife or husband or son or daughter of the affected land owner as the case may be nominated by the land owner. Nomination for appointment made in favour of spouse or son or daughter or legally adopted son / daughter of the land owner shall be final and shall not be allowed to be revoked or altered.

¶11Insofar as the delay is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director of Sericulture Department and another reported in 2015 (15) SCC 1, wherein it is held as follows: 36) It is now a well recognised principle of jurisprudence that a right not exercised for a long time is non-existent. Even when there is no limitation period prescribed by any statute relating to certain proceedings, in such cases Courts have coined the doctrine of laches and delays as well as doctrine of acquiescence and non-suited the litigants who approached the Court belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing the action after unreasonable delay. Doctrine of laches is in fact an application of maxim of equity "delay defeats equities". Therefore, even where no limitation is prescribed, but for a long period the aggrieved party does not approach the machinery provided under the law for redressel of the grievance, it can be presumed that relief can be denied on the ground of unexplained delay and laches. Further, if a person does not exercise his right for a long time, then such a right is not existent.

¶12Insofar as the scheme provides employment to one member of a family whose land has been acquired, is valid or not, in this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar Vs. District Magistrate and others reported in 2004 SCC Online All 1514, wherein it is answered for this question as follows:

¶19In our opinion, the aforesaid decisions do not lay down any principle of ' law that on acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act apart from giving them compensation under the Act a job has also to be provided. It is well settled that a mere direction in a judgment without laying down any principle of law is not a precedent vide Delhi Administration v. Manohar Lal, AIR 2002 SC 3088, Indian Council of Agricultural Research v. Raja Balwant Singh College, 2003 (1) ESC 424 etc. Hence the aforesaid decisions are not precedents.

12.1 Therefore, in the absence of any statutory provision or any promise, the petitioners cannot claim appointment as a matter of right nor can the respondent make such appointment and also held that the Government orders / Circulars providing employment to one member of a family whose land has been acquired (over and above compensation awarded under the law) are invalid. The acquiring body for whose benefit the land is acquired are not bound by such Government Order / Circular. Further, for the claim of the petitioners seeking employment on the ground that their lands have been acquired, they do not have any fundamental right to be provided employment by the respondents solely on the ground that their lands have been acquired. That apart, their entire claim is a stale claim and made belatedly. Merely rejection of their claim cannot give cause of action to file writ petition.

¶13The learned counsel for the petitioners specifically relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in similar issue in WP.No.26956 of 2018, etc batch dated 25.08.2022, wherein this Court issued the following directions:

37.In view of the aforestated discussion, this Court is inclined to dispose of these writ petitions with the following order: 1)There shall be a direction in these writ petitions to the respondent TANGEDCO to re-consider the plea of the petitioners if it is not already considered or once considered and rejected or kept pending. 2)With regard to the plea raised by the respective petitioner for getting a job in the respondent TANGEDCO suitably for their family members either for the son or daughter or for the grandchildren as the case may be, necessary orders to that effect, based on the scheme as well as the observations made in this order as discussed above, shall be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3)It is made clear that, in this regard any further input like NOC in one case as required or any further document is required from each of these petitioners, it is open to the respondents to issue notice to each of the petitioner to seek for such documents or additional input and on receipt of such notice, the respective petitioner shall produce those additional input, if it is available, within the time frame to be fixed in this regard by the TANGEDCO and thereafter, the needful as indicated above shall be made and final order shall be passed by the respondents within the time frame mentioned hereinabove.

13.1 This Court respectfully followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court, which decides the issue involved in the present writ petition. However, it is not applicable for the petitioners for the reasons as discussed above.

¶14Further, as per the Government Order in GO.Ms.No.656, the persons who have submitted the application for seeking employment must establish that they are in a need of employment and further they are bound to establish their indigent circumstances enabling the respondents to consider the case for providing employment. Establishing the penurious circumstances is also a pre-condition for seeking job assistance from the respondents. The petitioners failed to establish their penurious circumstances arising on account of the acquisition of their lands. The belated claim of the petitioners clearly show that at the time of acquisition of their respective lands, their family members were employed. Therefore, their families were not in need of any employment. The purpose of the scheme is to ensure that someone in the family must be given employment, otherwise the family will be faced with economical problem. Therefore, after period of long years, the claim of the petitioners seeking employment on the acquisition of their respective lands in the year 2004 to 2006 cannot be considered now.

¶15In view of the above discussion, the claim of the petitioners cannot be considered and all the writ petitioners are devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

06.03.2024

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order lok To

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamilnadu, Energy Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009

2.The Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity Board/TANGEDCO, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002

3.The Chief Engineer(Personnel), Tamilnadu Electricity Board/TANGEDCO, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002

4.The Chief Engineer, Mettur Thermal Power Station, TANGEDCO, Mettur, Mettur dam, Salem District 636 406 W.P.No.559oofo2023,oetcobatch G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,oJ. lok W.P.Nos.559,o562,o564,o567,o568,o621, 622,o623,o627,o675,o677,o681,o682,o684,o683,o685, 687,o689o&o691oofo2023

06.03.2024