The State Government is obligated to honor its commitment to provide jobs to project affected persons under the Government Resolution, and failure to do so can lead to legal intervention.

JUDGMENT - KOCHAR R.J., J.:---Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties.

2. This petition deserves to be disposed of at this stage itself as the petitioner has been knocking the doors of the State Government on and from 20-3-1997 for compassionate employment under the Government Resolution No. EM/1080/35-96-A dated 21-1-1980 issued by the General Administration Department wherein it has been provided that the State shall provide a job to one of the family members of the Project Affected Persons. There is no dispute that the land of the petitioners father was acquired for the purpose of Itiadoh Project for constructing the canals. There is also no dispute that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to get a job under the policy enunciated by the welfare State of Maharashtra under the aforesaid Government Resolution. No doubt, on paper, the said policy appears to be very laudable, but in practice, the petitioner and many like him are waiting to get the fruits of this welfare policy of the welfare State. If the State Government acquires the land of the people and if they are assured that at least one member of the family of the land owner shall be given employment, the State Government must honour its own commitment which it gives at the time of taking away the valuable source of the income of the people. Indeed, even a job cannot be a substitute for the land, for the person getting employment gets retired at some point of time, but the land continues to yield for generations and, therefore, we say that a job on compassionate ground is no substitute at all for the land. However, the "public purpose" cannot be made to suffer. By evolving the policy of providing jobs to such deprived project affected persons, the State Government has to try to soften the rigor of the loss of such families who are deprived of the source of livelihood. The petitioner was, no doubt, issued "Certificate-A" by the District Rehabilition Officer, Bhandara that he is an eligible project affected person entitled to get a job under the aforesaid Government Resolution. Beyond granting such paper certificate to the petitioner, the petitioner has, as yet, not been given a job though he is otherwise eligible and qualified. The petitioner is HSC D.Ed. and is eligible to be employed as a Primary Teacher. He has to support his old mother and his younger brother. He had applied along with the aforesaid certificate for job of a Primary Teacher on 25th March, 1997. Along with the application, he had annexed eight certificates. The concerned officer had no courtesy even to send acknowledgement to his application. After having waited for a long period, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for direction to the State Government to employ him as a Primary Teacher.

3. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has become so desperate that he is preferred to accept any job which is available or which would be made available to him. We can very well visualise, indeed, that the petitioner and his family including his old mother are starving and are reduced to the status of destitute on account of deprivation of their land for the public purpose.

4. The respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit. He has tried to give statistic of unemployed persons who are waiting in queue for such employment. We are not at all interested in the waiting list of the respondent No. 2 and we are not at all interested to know that there are 799 project affected persons. It is for the State Government to rehabilitate all such project affected persons within a very short and reasonable period and not make them wait for years together. The phenomena getting breadless is not unknown to the State Authorities. They ought to make a provision to employ such people before they initiate the land acquisition proceedings. The respondent No. 2 has, no doubt, given assurance after lapse of about six years to the petitioner that he will take

Click Here to Read the rest of this document