DIRECTOR MANDI PARISHAD Vs. SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a special appeal under the Rules of the Court arising out of the order of the learned single Judge dated 17.5.1996 in Writ Petition No. 23803 of 1994 whereby the learned single Judge held that the respondents-appellants are under duly to give employment to the members of such families whose land is acquired, irrespective of the fact whether post is available or not and allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent-appellants to provide employment to the petitioner-respondent No. 1 within two weeks from the date certified copy of the order is served upon them.

(2.) It appears that the land bearing Plot No. 421 having an area of one bigha belonging to the father of the petitioner-respondent No. 1 was acquired in the year 1988. His father, therefore, made a representation on 10.8.1988 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) before the Deputy Director (Administration), Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Allahabad (appellant No. 3) stating that his agricultural land has been acquired for the construction of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Ajhuaha, in the district of Allahabad and after that acquisition, he has no means for his livelihood and as such one person of his family should be given appointment in the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Ajhuaha in terms of the G.O. dated 15.6.1985 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). He filed another representation on 11.4.1994 addressed to the Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow, making a request to give appointment to his son, Sohan Lal petitioner-respondent No. 1 against a suitable post in the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Ajhuaha, in the district of Allahabad. Thereafter, he moved several representations, the last being 11.4.1994 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) and when no action was taken the aforesaid writ petition was filed claiming therein that in view of G.O. dated 15.6.1985 the writ petitioner is entitled to be given appointment. The appellants who were the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 filed counter-affidavit and contested the writ petition on the ground inter alia that only a portion of land, i.e., one bigha, of the petitioner's father has been acquired and the major portion, i.e, about two and half acres of land is still available for cultivation with the petitioner's family. It has further been asserted in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner-respondent No. 1 is of 37 years of age, thus over age and, therefore, cannot be appointed in view of the U.P. Agricultural Produce Market Committee (Centralised) Services Regulations, 1984 (for short the Regulation). Besides that he is not unemployed and is engaged in truck business and cultivation and, therefore, his claim is not covered by the aforesaid G.O. dated 15.6.1985.

(3.) It appears from the record of the writ petition that when it was taken up on 28.7.1994, learned counsel for the respondents were granted six weeks' time to file counter-affidavit and one week thereafter for rejoinder-affidavit and the writ petition was ordered to be listed after expiry of the aforesaid period. By an interim order the petitioner was given opportunity to file representation before the respondent No. 1 within a period of one week and in the event of filing of such representation, the respondent No. 1 (Director) was directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law by a reasoned order within ten days from the date of filing of the representation along with the certified copy of that order. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner-respondent No. 1 had filed the representation before the Director which was rejected vide order dated 1.9.1994, a copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure-3 to the counter-affidavit, on the ground. Inter alia, that the G.O. dated 15.6.1985, is applicable only where the land is acquired for the establishment of any industrial unit and if on account of such acquisition the whole family is uprooted in that event one member of the family may be given employment in the industrial unit established on the land acquired for that purpose. It has also been found by the Director that the petitioner-respondent No. 1 has crossed the age prescribed in the Regulation for appointment and the petitioner's family is still in possession of two bighas 17 biswas and 11 biswansi agricultural land and, therefore, he is not entitled to get appointment under the aforesaid G.O. It has also been found by the Director that no post is available for appointment in the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Ajhuaha, in the district of Allahabad, hence he rejected the representation of the petitioner. The learned single Judge was of the view that the grounds taken in the order of rejection of representation have no substance, as the land retained by the family is not at all sufficient for the survival of the petitioner's family. The learned single Judge was further of the view that if no post is available, the respondents are under duty to give employment to the members of such family whose land is acquired irrespective of the fact that the post is available or not.