D.G.M. (HR) P.G. CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. versus T. VENKAT REDDY AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 79 · Decided: 13-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
D.G.M. (HR) P.G. CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. 
A 
v. 
T. VENKA T REDDY AND ORS. 
APRIL 13, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
B 
'-y 
Land Acquisition: 
Rehabilitation of displaced persons-Land oustees claiming priority in c 
employment in the department acquiring their lands-High Court directing 
their case to be considered on priority basis in case they were found qualified 
and equal to other persons seeking "such employment"-Held: By the Order 
of High Court, land oustees have not been conferred with any benefit/ 
exemption/relaxation-Direction relating to "such employment"would be in 
relation to persons seeking employment as land oustees or their dependants. D 
" 
Words and Phrases: 
"Such employment"-Connotation of in the context of employment to 
land oustees as a result of land acquisition. 
Respondents' lands were acquired by the appellant Corporation. They E 
filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a direction to the appellant 
to consider their case for appointment to suitable posts as displaced persons. 
Single Judge of the High Court directed the appellants to consider 
respondents' case as per Schemes/Rules. In the appeal before the Division 
--) 
Bench of the High Court, the appellants contended that there was no scheme F 
to provide any employment to displaced persons. The Division Bench held that 
no scheme existed to provide employment to land oustees or their dependants, 
however, a semblance of priority with regard to the respoAdents could be 
recognized and as and when the appellant undertook employment preference 
was to be given to the respondents ifthe were found qualified and equal to G 
other persons seeking "such employment". Aggrieved, the Corporation filed 
) 
the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
79 
H 
80 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: The direction for consideration when other persons seek "such 
employment" can only mean when somebody else is seeking employment as a 
land oustee or his dependant. Therefore, only clarifying the position that the 
direction of the High Court relating to "such employment" will be in relation 
to persons seeking employment as land oustees or their dependants. If there 
B is no scheme, the question of giving any employment would not arise. It is 
also clear from the order of the High Court that the respondents cannot be 
conferred with any benefit or exemption or relaxation. [Para 8) [82-A-C) 
Bu tu Prasad Kumbhar and Ors v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors., 
(1995) Supp 2 SCC 225, referred to. 
c 
CIVIL APPELLATE illRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1953 of2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2005 of the High Court of 
Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 853 of2005. 
D 
S.B. Upadhyay, Nitin Kumar, S.M. Sharma and Sharmila Upadhyay for 
the Appellant. 
Aparna Bhat, P. Ramesh Kumar, Banju Raj Kumari, Arvind Minocha, 
Vishal Baheti, Veena Minocha and Randhir Singh for the Respondents. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAY AT, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. Appellant questions correctness of the order passed by a Division 
Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court disposing of the writ appeal filed 
F 
questioning correctness of the orders passed by a learned Single Judge. The 
factual position in a nutshell is as follows:-
3. Respondents claimed to be the owner of certain extent oflands which 
was acquired by the appellant for the purpose of establishing a sub-station. 
Respondents filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the appellant to 
G consider their cases for appointment to a suitable post because they answered 
the description of displaced persons. They placed reliance on letter dated 
3.1.2005 issued by the appellant. Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ 
petition directing the respondents to consider the cases of the appellant 
within a period of four weeks as per the Schemes or Rules framed therein. 
H 
4. Appellant questioned the correctness of the order passed by learned 
./ 
~ 
i-
<... 
D.G.M. (HR) P.G. COPRN. OF INDIA LTD. v. T. VENKATREDDY [PASAYA I, I.) 81 
Single Judge stating that the lands in question were acquired in 1982 and A 
neither at that point of time of acquisition or subsequently there was any 
scheme to provide any employment to the displaced persons, whose lands 
were acquired for the purpose of establishing a sub-station. It was pointed 
out that the letter, on which reliance was placed, was issued in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.