Employment assistance claims require proof that the acquired land was the sole livelihood source, and belated claims fail without timely submission.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

Under assail is the writ order dated 26.04.2021 passed in W.P.No.8617 of 2014.

2. The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., [hereinafter referred to as “TANGEDCO”] preferred the present intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent mainly on the ground that the application seeking employment assistance by the family of land looser was filed after a lapse of 18 years from the acquisition proceedings and more so, their family has not established that the acquired land alone was the source of livelihood, so as to extend the benefit. Thus, the claim for employment assistance came to be rejected by TANGEDCO.

3. The facts in brief required to consider the issue are that the respondent’s father owned a land in S.No.896/1A part, situated at No.144, Vallur Village, Ponneri Taluk, Chennai, measuring to an extent of 0.57 acres. The land originally belonged to the grandfather of the petitioner and his father inherited the property. The land was acquired from the father of the petitioner by TANGEDCO for establishing North Chennai Thermal Power Project. In 1992 acquisition proceedings were completed. During the relevant point of time, the father of the petitioner was employed in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board [hereinafter referred to as “TNEB”]. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that he was a contract employee. However, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that at the time of acquisition, he was a contract employee, but, he was subsequently brought under the regular establishment in the year 1999 and he served as permanent employee of TNEB and retired from service. Therefore, the land acquired was not only the source of income for the family sustenance. The father of the petitioner became regular employee of TNEB and retired from service. That apart, the father of the petitioner, since employed, had not applied for employment assistance. After his retirement, nearly after a lapse of 18 years, the petitioner submitted an application seeking employment assistance based on the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.656, Labour and Employment Department, dated 29.06.1978. The said application was rejected by the Board vide proceedings dated 22.06.2010.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the writ Court has not considered the fact that the application filed by the respondent is belated and the family of the respondent has not established that the land acquired in 1992 was the source of income for sustenance of the family. It is not disputed that father of the respondent was employed in TNEB and retired as a regular employee. Therefore, the writ Court has committed an error and thus, the present appeal is filed.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent would oppose by stating that the Scheme contemplates one appointment to the family of land looser. When the Government Order is adopted by the Board, the case of the respondent is to be considered for providing employment assistance. The reasons stated in the impugned order that the application has been filed belatedly is untenable, since there is no time limit contemplated under the Government Order and the land acquired is not in dispute. Therefore, the writ Court has considered and allowed the Writ Petition.

6. This Court has considered the rival submissions made between the parties to the lis.

7. Providing employment to land looser under the acquisition proceedings is an additional concession extended by the Government. On acquisition, compensation has