RATI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present judgment shall dispose of 3 writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 19704 of 2003, Rati Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others; CWP No. 13621 of 2004, Jaipal Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others and CWP No. 19691 of 2005, Nepal Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others, since common questions of facts and law are involved in all the writ petitions. The facts are being taken from CWP Nos. 19704 of 2003, Rati Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others.

(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed by 45 petitioners challenging the order dated 04.09.2003 (Annexure P -14) passed by the General Manager of respondent -Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'IOC') whereby, their claim for seeking employment to one member of every displaced family was rejected on the ground that as per the policy dated 03.02.1986 (Annexure P -3), the Union of India had withdrawn any such offers. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that they are residents of village Piyala and village Asawati, District Faridabad and notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') was issued on 27.12.1989 for acquisition of 637 kanals and 9 marlas for setting up a Lube Oil Blending Plant by the Corporation. The same was followed by notification dated 12.12.1990 under Section 6 of the Act and the award was passed on 12.12.1991 (Annexure P -7). The land owners had protested against the acquisition and the local administration had given the assurance that one member of the family of the oustees would be provided a job in the plant and there was already a policy of the Central Government to provide a job in case the land is acquired for any public undertaking. Reliance is accordingly placed upon the policy dated 03.02.1986. Reference was made to inter office memo of the corporation dated 11.05.1987 (Annexure P -4) wherein, preference in employment was to be given to those whose land had been acquired. Reference was made to letter dated 14.09.1989 (Annexure P -5) issued by the Director of Employment, Haryana to the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Ballabgarh, District Faridabad wherein, the list of applicants was asked for to get them appointed in the bottling plant at Piyala.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by the respondent -corporation, it was pleaded that no preferential treatment could be accorded to the petitioners and the posts would not be reserved for persons whose land had been acquired since they had got compensation for the land and were not placed in any disadvantageous position. The petitioners had no legal right to seek a writ of mandamus for appointment and IOC was having excessive man power in its various plants and units and no fresh recruitment had been made. The plant was highly sophisticated, computerized and required less man power. The Single Bench judgment of the Madras High Court had been stayed on 06.10.2003. That any assurance given by the local administration was not binding on the answering respondent. The policy dated 03.02.1986 of providing formal and non -formal appointment stood withdrawn and the basic responsibility of initiating such schemes was that of the State Government. The project authorities were only to assist the concerned State Government and help the displaced families to set up useful vocations like poultry farms and animal husbandry. The compensation had been paid which had been further revised by the Reference Court and appeal for enhancement of compensation was pending before this Court. Annexure P -5 was for the bottling plant of BPCL and not for Asaoti and the letter had been issued prior to the notification. It was denied that there was any settlement regarding the employment of persons and in fact the Corporation had to file a writ petition as the villagers had blocked the entry of the plant and with the intervention of the Court, the functioning of the plant started. The assurance was only a suggestion by the District Administration but no settlement was arrived at and if the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. had given employment, it was not binding on the answering respondent.