D.g.m.(hr) P.g.corporation of India Ltd. v. T.venkat Reddy .

Court

Supreme Court of India

Decided

13 April 2007

Case no.

C.A. No.-001953-001953 - 2007

Facts

The respondents claimed ownership of land acquired by the appellant in 1982 for establishing a sub-station. They filed a writ petition seeking employment consideration as displaced persons, citing a letter from the appellant that suggested a potential for employment opportunities. The Single Judge of the High Court directed the appellant to consider the respondents' cases within four weeks. The appellant contested this order, arguing that no employment scheme existed at the time of acquisition or thereafter, and that the letter was misinterpreted.

Arguments

Petitioner Arguments

The petitioner argued that

• There was no existing scheme for providing employment to displaced persons at the time of land acquisition or subsequently.
• The letter cited by the respondents was merely a response to an inquiry and did not establish any obligation for employment.
• The passage of time since the acquisition further diminished any claims for employment consideration.

The court addressed these arguments by emphasizing that while no formal scheme existed, the principle of priority in employment could still apply when the corporation undertakes hiring.

Respondent Arguments

The respondents contended that

• Many state-controlled organizations provide employment to land oustees, and the appellant should not deviate from this practice.
• The letter from the appellant indicated a willingness to consider their cases for employment.
• They sought a direction for preferential treatment in employment opportunities.

The court acknowledged the respondents' arguments but clarified that while no direct employment obligation existed, a priority consideration could be established for future hiring.

Precedents considered

The court referenced Butu Prasad Kumbhar and Others v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., which established that while there may not be a formal scheme, the principle of providing priority to displaced persons in employment matters is recognized. This precedent supported the court's decision to allow for preferential consideration without mandating employment.

Legal principles

The court considered the following legal principles

• The absence of a formal employment scheme does not negate the possibility of providing priority to displaced persons.
• The principle of fairness and equity in employment opportunities for those affected by land acquisition.
• The need for eligibility and fulfillment of conditions for employment, even when priority is granted.

Decision and reasoning

Rationale

The court reasoned that while the appellant corporation did not have a formal scheme for employment of land oustees, it was reasonable to provide a semblance of priority when hiring for unskilled positions. This approach balanced the rights of the respondents with the operational realities of the corporation. The court criticized the rigid stance of the appellant, suggesting that a more flexible approach would align with principles of social justice.

Outcome

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, directing that the appellant must consider the respondents preferentially for future employment opportunities, provided they meet eligibility criteria. The court did not impose any specific timelines for employment but emphasized the need for consideration whenever hiring occurs.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the principle that even in the absence of formal employment schemes, displaced persons may still be entitled to preferential consideration in employment matters. It highlights the court's commitment to social justice and the protection of rights for those affected by land acquisition.

Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)