D SUBBARAMAIAH Vs. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER APGENCO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamus to declare the impugned proceedings passed by the second respondent vide proceedings Lr.No.CE/E/G and M/RTPP/PO/F.D./D.No.3213/ 2000, dated 15.11.2000 as arbitrary and illegal, besides violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.3649 of 1998, dated 12.08.1998.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: THE then A.P.S.E.B., which is now called as APGENCO, represented by respondents 1 and 2 acquired Ac 0.93 cents of the land of the petitioner situated at Kallamalla Village, Yerraguntla Mandal, Cuddapah District in the year 1991 for the purpose of construction of Rayalaseema THErmal Power Project. THE petitioner was paid Rs. 28,915/- towards compensation by award No.4/1991-92, dated 30.08.1991. While acquiring the lands, the erstwhile A.P.S.E.B., had assured suitable employment to the displaced persons in terms of G.O.Ms. No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) department, dated 15.04.1986. According to the petitioner, since his entire lands were acquired, he was deprived of his livelihood and he was entitled for the suitable employment as a displaced person in terms of the above referred G.O. When he submitted an application to provide suitable employment, the said application was forwarded to the concerned authorities and His name was shown at S.No.54. However, his case was not considered. It appears that incidentally, there is a clerical mistake showing the land as Ac 5.93 cents instead of 0.93 cents of land and then again his case was re-considered Though he requested for reconsideration, his application was not yet considered. THEn he filed W.P.No.3649 of 1998 and this court allowed the said writ petition vide its order, dated 12.08.1998 and the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment for a suitable post in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents preferred an appeal in W.A.No.1092 of 2000 and the said appeal was dismissed by a Bench consisting of the then Honourable the Chief Justice and the Honourable Justice Goda Raghuram on 19.10.2000. In the said appeal, the following order was passed:

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri J.Ashvini Kumar is that admittedly, the land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1991 and at that time, Act 2 of 1994 was not communicated and that as per the relevant G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986, the petitioner was entitled for employment as a displaced person. Referring to the conviction in C.C.No.23 of 1997, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram, it is submitted that the offence with which the petitioner was charged does not come under the definition of moral turpitude and more over, the petitioner was imposed punishment of Rs. 250/- and when the conviction and sentence of fine alone is imposed, such kind of conviction would not make the petitioner disentitle for employment. He has also placed judgment of the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another (1) 1996 (4) SCC 17. It is also his submission that in the earlier writ petitions and writ appeals, the respondents had not taken a plea that Act 2 of 1994 is applicable to the facts of this case or that it has got any retrospective effect.