Employment assistance claims under rehabilitation schemes must be timely and supported by evidence of eligibility, particularly regarding the dependency on acquired land.

JUDGMENT :

G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 27.07.2022 in W.P. No. 32333 of 2018.

1. The Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 27.07.2022 made in W.P. No. 32333 of 2018, whereby the appellants were directed to consider the claim for giving a job to the respondent being a member of the family of the displaced persons in view of the acquisition of lands.

2. The short facts to be noted in the appeal is that the Government had issued G.O. (Ms.) No. 656, Labour and Employment Department, dated 29.06.1978, by extending employment assistance to families displaced on account of the acquisition of lands, which was later made applicable to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board also. The appellants towards implementing North Chennai Thermal Power Project, in view of B.P. Per (FB) No. 3, Administrative Branch dated 25.01.1990, extended employment assistance to one member in each family from whom lands were acquired for acquisition for the thermal project.

3. It is the case of the respondent/petitioner that his mother, M/s. Prema @ Premavathy was the owner of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 154/1A and 154/3A1 at Cheppakkam Village, Thiruvallur District, which was acquired for putting up the North Chennai Thermal Power Project. However, no such benefit was extended to the petitioner's family by providing job for any member of the family. Since the petitioner came to know only at a later point of time about the scheme of employment when some of the persons from the displaced families were provided with employment, the petitioner through his counsel had sent legal notice on 27.07.2018 to provide employment. But it was not considered and the petitioner had preferred the writ petition for a direction to the appellants/respondents to accord the benefit of rehabilitation of job assistance to the petitioner in view of the scheme issued by the respondents in B.P. Per (FB) No. 3, Administrative Branch dated 25.01.1990.

4. The writ court on considering the fact that an award was passed in respect of acquiring various lands for the Project wherein the lands belonging to the petitioner's family was also included and the compensation for acquisition of the lands were awarded in favour of one Munusamy and Premavathy Ammal jointly, held that the respondents ought to have taken steps to verify the identity of the petitioner's family by referring the matter to the District Collector and accordingly a job ought to have been offered to the petitioner. Thereby the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 27.02.2022, directing the respondents to verify the identity of the petitioner as to whether he belongs to the family of M/s. Prema @ Premavathy and extend the benefits for giving a job to the petitioner. Assailing the impugned order, the appellants/TANGEDCO are before this Court on appeal.

5. Mr. Anand Gopalan, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants argued that no right has been conferred on the respondent for employment, simply in view of the scheme implemented by the appellants for providing employment. When the scheme was extended by the appellant Board, the same was only subject to certain criteria to be fulfilled and the extension of benefits is not automatic. It is his further contention that, in fact, as per the Clauses in the scheme under Board Proceedings dated 25.01.1990, other male members are available in the petitioner's family, including his father and elder brother, who have not applied seeking benefits under the scheme.

6. It is the contention of the Standing Counsel for the appellants that even as per the affidavit filed by the respondent, his father was in employment till 1996 and his brother was also employed and only since they have been in better employment and had not been affected or displaced by the land acquisition, they have not sought for any employment assistance. He also contended that in fact the respondent, who had been able to complete his schooling