CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. S GANAPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant company is a Government of India undertaking functioning under the administrative control of Department of Atomic Energy and is in the process of separating strategic minerals like Zircon, Monazite, Ilmenite, Rutile, Garnet etc., For expansion of its mining activities in Manavalakurichi area, the appellant company required a large extent of land and accordingly, lands admeasuring about 40.072 HA were acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu and possession of the land was also handed over to the appellant company during the year 1990-1991. THE land owners were paid adequate compensation. THE land owners/displaced persons approached this Court by way of writ petitions seeking for a direction to the appellant company to fulfil the promises by providing suitable employment to one member of each family as they were dispossessed of their lands by the acquisition proceedings. THE writ petitions were laid only on the ground that in the award enquiry, the Manager of the appellant Company had promised before the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, that one member from each family of the individuals, whose lands were acquired, would be given employment in the appellant company. In view of such promise, the appellant Company is estopped from denying such benefit.

(2.) BY a common order dated 09.12.2002, the writ petitions were allowed with a direction to provide appointment to one member of each of the displaced families. It was also directed that till such time, such appointments are made, the appellant company should not make any appointment to class 3 and 4 posts or other lower class or menial posts. Based upon the above direction, other consequential directions were also issued.

(3.) IN (2003) 3 MLJ 726 (The Chairman, TNEB Vs. Arulnathan and Others), a Division Bench of this Court held that the displaced persons or the land owners do not have any fundamental right to be provided with employment solely on the ground that their lands have been acquired. This judgment was followed by a subsequent Division Bench in W.A.Nos.2113 to 2180 of 2001 etc., dated 19.08.2006.