RAJESH KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved against the order dat4d 28-3-1995 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant, the present special appeal has been filed.

(2.) IN the writ petition, the appellant staked the claim for his appointment for the reason of the fact that his land was acquired by the State Government for cer tain irrigation work but one member of the family, namely, the petitioner was not provided the employment. It appears that employment was given to the father of the petitioner whose land was acquired but Unfortunately the petitioner's father ex pired in. the year 1983. Thereafter, the petitioner after filing of a certificate of the lehsilelar to the effect that the laird which remains in possession of the family after the acquisition was not fit for cultivation, hence he should be given employment but no employment was given. While dismiss ing the writ petition Hon'ble Single Judge took note of a Government order dated 22-10-1992. The earlier Government order dated 20-12-1973 provided that employment to one member of the family would be given, if the land of the family has been acquired. By the subsequent Govern ment order issued by the Irrigation Department, giving of the employment was limited to one family member whose land has been acquired for the benefit of any industrial undertaking. The attention of this Court has been drawn towards the latest Government order dated 29-2-1996 issued by the Principal Secretary of the Revenue Department, wherein the con tents of the first Government order was reiterated and it was provided that atleast one member of the family whose land has been acquired must be given appointment, even after considering the earlier Govern ment order dated 22-10-1992. It appears that as the present Government order was not in existence when the impugned order was passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge hence he dismissed the writ petition. There is another aspect of the matter which was not considered by the Hon'ble Single Judge, the first Government order did not put any condition but the second Government order dated 22-10-1992 had put a condition to the effect that the employment would be given to one person belonging to the family whose land has been acquired for the purpose of in dustrial unit. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether by sub sequent Government order which has not been superseded the benefit given in the previous Government order can be taken away. But without dealing any question the case of the petitioner deserves to be for reconsideration by the Principal Secretary of the Irrigation Department as well as the Principal Secretary (Revenue ).