In this writ petition, the petitioner sought employment from the Indian Oil Corporation based on land acquisition compensation. The Single Judge allowed the petition relying on cited precedents. The Division Bench distinguished these precedents because the petitioner had already been paid compensation, dismissing the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.04.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE S.VIMALA W.P.No.13508 of 2003
Ramesh
... Petitioner
versus
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records in Proceedings in P/1741 dated 21.10.2002 on the file of the 1st respondent, to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents herein to provide suitable employment to the petitioner in the 1st respondent organization forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sairam For R1 and R2 : Mr.T.S.Anash, for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.
Mr.Thangavadana Balakrishnan for R2
ORDER
Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that a writ petition was filed against the Indian Oil Corporation and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, seeking direction to the respondents to provide suitable employment to the petitioner therein, in the organization of the first respondent and the said writ petition was allowed. Challenging the same, the writ appeal was filed by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The writ appeal along with connected matters were heard by the Division Bench and the Division Bench has chosen to set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge. It is also represented that even though the writ appeal has been allowed dismissing the claim for employment to the employees, the second respondent herein has provided compensation to the petitioner therein.
placed persons, is quoted hereunder:
“19. The submissions made by Mr.Ajmal Khan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/first respondent based on the decision reported in Banvasi Seva Aasiram vs. The State of UP and others (AIR 1992 SC 920) and Calcutta Port Trust vs. Deba Prosad Bag and others (1994 Supp (2) SCC 101 : 1994 (2) L.L.N.5) cannot be countenanced for the following reasons: (I) In Calcutta Port Trust vs. Deba Prosad Bag and others (1994 Supp (2) SCC 101 : 1994 (2) L.L.W.5) the Hon'ble Apex Court has relied upon a similar Government Order and had directed provision of employment. In that case, a similar Government Order directing employment of displaced persons was considered by the Port Trust for whose benefit the lands were acquired and it was resolved to offer employment considering the fact that those persons are uprooted and were never paid any compensation. Such resolution was passed as a rehabilitation measure. On the basis of the resolution, certain eligible candidates were also considered and there was a dispute as to their appointment. In that context, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the uprooted persons are entitled to employment. However, on the facts of this case, admittedly, the land owners/displaced persons were paid compensation and the IOC has not resolved to provide employment to the land owners/displaced persons. Therefore, on facts, the judgment of the Apex Court is distinguishable and in our considered view the learned Judge was not right in granting the relief sought for by writ petitioners by placing reliance on the above decision.
(ii) Similarly the facts of the case reported in Banvasi Seva Aasiram vs. the State of UP and others (AIR 1992 SC 920) are totally different from the facts of the case on hand.
In the case on hand, the petitioner has also been paid compensation and is similarly placed like that of the petitioners/respondents in W.A.Nos.1749 to 1762 of 2013, etc.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ogy
To
1. The Deputy General Manager,
(Human Resources)
Indian Oil Corporation,
I.O.C. Bhavan, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 34.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ponneri, Tiruvellore District.
+1cc to Mr.T.S.Gopalan, Advocate, S.R.No.30453
+1cc to Mr.S.Sairaman, Advocate, S.R.No.30310
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.30759
W.P.No.13508 of 2003
RJ(CO)
GSP(10/08/2018)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a dismissal of an employment claim based on compensation payment can be challenged after the compensation was already provided.
Whether the single Judge's decision was correctly set aside on facts as the petitioner was similarly placed to other persons covered in connected matters.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Banvasi Seva Aasiram vs. The State of UP and othersDistinguished¶15
Banvasi Seva Aasiram vs. The State of UP and others (AIR 1992 SC 920) · Who else cites this
Calcutta Port Trust vs. Deba Prosad Bag and othersDistinguished¶15
Calcutta Port Trust vs. Deba Prosad Bag and others (1994 Supp (2) SCC 101 : 1994 (2) L.L.N.5) · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ramesh
Deputy General Manager, Human Resources, Indian Oil Corporation
Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri
Dr. JUSTICE S.VIMALA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
