JUDGEMENT
D.K.Seth, J. -
(1.) Shri L. P. Singh. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire land of the petitioner was acquired some time in 1984 by the State Government for the respondents. According to the Government Circular dated 29.2.1996 contained in Annexure 7 to the writ petition, the petitioner is entitled to employment since his entire land was acquired by the State Government for the respondents.
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. Secondly, he contends that the Government Order contained in Anncxure-7 is applicable only in respect of the corporation/undertaking of the State Government. Here in this case the respondents are Central Government Corporation and, therefore, the said Government Order does not apply. He next contends that the petitioner could not have any legal or statutory right to get the appointment on compassionate ground.
(3.) Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in reply contends that the land was acquired by the State Government for the respondent. Whenever the land is acquired by the Government irrespective of the beneficiary being Central Government Organisation or State Government Organisation. This nature and character of the organisation does not make any distinction so far as application of Annexure-7. In the present case admittedly, the land was acquired by the State Government for the respondents as beneficiaries. He relies on the decision in the case of Umesh Chandra Srivastava v. District Magistrate and others, 1904 (24) ALR 38, in support of his contention that whenever State Government acquires land it imposes a condition on the beneficiaries that they are required to give appointment to one of the members of the displaced person whose land has been acquired. He then contends that several other persons mentioned in paragraph 13 of the writ petition were given employment. Thus, the respondents are discriminating between the petitioner and those persons mentioned at para 13 who were similarly situated.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.