S KANJANA Vs. COLLECTOR THENI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.