In a writ petition seeking employment compensation for land acquisition, the High Court of Madras rejected the petitioner's claim. The court held that without a specific employment scheme under the respondent corporation's rules, the assurance provided was not enforceable against the public sector undertaking.
Writ petition dismissed with no costs.
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.
W.P.No.26448 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 12.06.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
W.P.No.26448 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
S.Anand
... Petitioner
Vs.
Nagapattinam.
...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the concerned records from the 2nd respondent, quash the order of the 2nd
1/11
W.P.No.26448 of 2014
respondent dated 31.07.2014 bearing KKL/CA/LAQ/LEGAL/GCS KUT/2014 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider and appoint the petitioner in the suitable post of the 2nd respondent after taking into consideration of the educational qualification of the petitioner in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.656, Labour and Employment dated 28.6.1978 issued by the 1st respondent, within the time frame stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Balan Haridas
For Respondents : Mr.S.Rajesh Government Advocate [R1, R3]
Mr.M.Vijayan for M/s.King & Patridge [R2]
ORDER
Land was acquired from the petitioner's father at Nagapattinam by
the 2nd respondent in order to establish Gas Collection Station and Helium Extraction Plant. In the course of acquisition proceedings based on the private negotiation, land price was finalised and assurance was given to the father of the petitioner to the effect that job will be given to the owners of the land, whose lands have been acquired under G.O.Ms.No.656 dated 28.06.1976. The petitioner who has completed B.Tech Degree, on application to the 2nd respondent to provide employment as it was not considered, this writ petition is filed.
2/11
W.P.No.26448 of 2014
3/11
W.P.No.26448 of 2014
reference to the Employment Exchange.
4/11
W.P.No.26448 of 2014
to:
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., (A Government of India Undertaking), Project Site, Kudankulam-627 106, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, through its Project Director (Vs.) 1. Heirlin Jeya Sutha, 2. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Through its District Collector, Tirunelveli, wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has held that in a similar case filed against Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., (A Government of India Undertaking), by an individual, it has been observed that ''... 1st respondent has to show that the scheme is prevailing in the appellant-Corporation and the same has been violated by the appellant. It is pertinent to note that as far as the Government Order is concerned, it is only an administrative instruction having no legal binding on the individual or any undertaking, not covered by it, and, it would be strange to contend and hold that it is persuading the appellant to provide employment at least to one of the members of the family, whose land was covered by acquisition.
5/11
W.P.No.26448 of 2014
a nutshell, since no scheme is available in the Appellant-Corporation, the
6/11
W.P.No.26448 of 2014
the following dictum was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
'' Surely, the doctrine of estoppel cannot be applied
against public authorities when their mistaken advice or representation is found to be in breach of a Statute and therefore, against general public interest. The question, however, is whether the parties or individuals, who had suffered because of the mistake and negligence on the part of the statutory public authorities, would have any remedy of redressal for the loss they have suffered. The 'rules of fairness' by which every public authority is bound, requires them to compensate loss occasioned to private parties or
citizens who were misled in acting on such mistaken or negligent advice of the public Authority.''
7/11
W.P.No.26448 of 2014
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of providing employment in the Public Sector Undertakings in the absence of any scheme, for providing employment, the petitioner cannot lay a claim.
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.06.2024
ssn
W.P.No.26448 of 2014
Index: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non Speaking order
To
9/11
3.The District Collector, Collectorate, Nagapattinam.
W.P.No.26448 of 2014
R.KALAIMATHI, J .,
ssn
W.P.No.26448 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
W.P.No.26448 of 2014
12.06.2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an undertaking given by public authorities regarding employment in the absence of a statutory scheme is binding.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to employment based on land acquisition assurances when no corporation scheme exists.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., through its Project Director (Vs.) 1. Heirlin Jeya Sutha, 2. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Through its District CollectReferred¶44
Hira Tikkoo v. Union Territory of ChandigarhExplained¶58
Hira Tikkoo v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2004 (6) SCC 765 · Who else cites this
S. Anand
Government of Tamil Nadu
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
District Collector, Nagapattinam
R. KALAIMATHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
