WP/5721/2008 of PAYAM VENKATESWARLU, KHAMMAM DIST. Vs THE DIST. COLLECTOR, KHAMMAM AND 2 OTHERS on 29 December 2023

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the orderNo.HWPM/(Rl / LL / 07 / t26, dated Ot.O2.2OOZ rejecting theciaim of the petitioner for employment on the ground ofNo.HWPM/(Rl / LL / 07 / t26, dated Ot.O2.2OOZ rejecting theciaim of the petitioner for employment on the ground oflimitation is contrar5r to the policy of the Government laiddown in Memo No.813/ID/8I-2, dated OT.OT. 1981 andconsequently to direct the respondents to provideemployment on par with other similarly situated persons.down in Memo No.813/ID/8I-2, dated OT.OT. 1981 andconsequently to direct the respondents to provideemployment on par with other similarly situated persons.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Standing counsel for the third respondent.

3. [t is submitted by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that the petitioner has made an application to therespondents for employment under 'I-and Losers aseuota,, he being the family member and being eligible, as perGovernment Memo No.B13/ID/81-2, dated 07.07.198t.The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on aletter of the Revenue Divisional Officer, pa,loncha, dated09.11.2003 to the third respondent, wherein the RevenueDivisional Officer has enclosed the application of the petitioner requesting for job and he requested the thirdrespondent to verify the case of the petitioner and informthe action taken.

4. The learned counsel places reliance places reliance upon the decisionthe decisiondecisionof a learned single judge of this Court in Writ petitionNo.24063 of 2OO7, and seeks a direction to the concernedauthorities to provide employment. That the facts in thesaid writ petition are similar and same relief be granted.

The learned counsel places reliance places reliance upon the decisionthe decisiondecision

5. It is submitted that the petitioner has made anapplication to the concerned authorities for employmentand the same has not been considered. It is contended thata dependent certificate was issued on 07.05.2O01 and thename of the petitioner is mentioned in column No.3 of thedependent certificate and hence he is eligible foremployment in the third respondent-Organization.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the third respondentcontends that the petitioner made an application with delay.An application is to be made within one year from the dateof dependent certificate issued by the concerned authorities.It is submitted that as per Circular No.Bl/ lO2l2/gS, dated ,./

the [persons ][who ][are ][eligible ][for ][seeking]30.09.1986, under [the ][scheme ]['land ][losers ][quota' ][shall ][be]employment the displaced [persons ][or ][his/her ][son, ][daughter ][or ][spouse']and there being [no other ][earning member ][in ][the ][family' ][The]learned Standing [Counsel ][further ][contends ][that ][the]petitioner was aged [13/ ][14 ][years ][at ][the ][time the land ][being]for the [purpose of ][heavy ][water ][plant' ][The ][best ][the]acquired petitioner could have [done ][was ][to ][make ][an application ][soon]after he became [eligible ][for ][job/emplo5rment' ][No ][such]was [made. ]Petitioner approached [for]application at [a belated ][point ][of ][time ][ald ][the ][same ][cannot]employment be considered [as ][it ][is ][hit ][by ][delay ][and laches']

7 . The learned Standing [Counsel for ][the ][third ][respondent]submits that [reliance placed ][on ][order ][in ][W'P'No'24063 ][of]2OO7 is misconceived [and ][is ][not ][applicablJ ][to the ][facts ][of]the case on hand. [In ][the ][present ][case, ][the ][application ][for]is [not ][made ][within ][reasonable ][time ][after]employment attainrng the eligibility. [It ][is ][also ][contended ][that ][at ][the time]of issuance of [land ][loser/dependent ][certificate, ][the]petitioner [was ][not ][eligible, ][and ][by ][no stretch ][ef ][imagination,]

the third respondent-Organization can consider the caseafter seven years as the Scheme itself would come to anend. It was also further contended that at the time ofissuance of land loser certihcate, none were found to beeligible for providing employment in the family. It is alsosubmitted that whenever a member of the family was foundeligible as per the Circular and as per the dependentcertificate issued in land losers quota by the concernedauthorities, such persons/ individuals were provided with anemploSrment.

8. The learned Standing Counsel learned Standing Counsel Standing Counsel further contends contends thatas there is delay in making the representation foremplo5rment under 'land losers quota', the case of thepetitioner cannot be considered for empioyment after such aIong lapse of time. It is submitted that a reasonable time isthe essence to safeguard and protect the interests ofgenuine lald losers, who are in need of immediateassistance, there being no earning member in the family.The contention of the petitioner that his father gotregistered his name r.r,ith the third respondent under the The learned Standing Counsel learned Standing Counsel Standing Counsel further contends contends that land loser quota/ category is not true and [the ][learned]counsel further submitted that the averment [of ][the]petitioner that an application was made in the [month ][of]November, 2OO 1, seeking employment [as ][his father ][was ][over]aged and suffering from ill health [is ][not ]true. [It ][is ][stated]that representation, dated 23.12.2006, [preferred ][by ][him ][is]not true.

9. The contention that similarly situated [persons ][were]provided with employment is false and is denied [by ][the]counsel for third respondent. [It ][is ][stated ][that in ][the ][case ][of]Shri Babu Rao, land [vt,as ]acquired [in ][the ][year ][1987, ][he ][was]interviewed in the year [1989 ][and due ][to ][his ][involvement ][in]a Criminal Case, he was not [considered ][for ][employment.]Consequently, upon. an order of Central [Administrative]Tribunal (for short the Tribunal') [in ][August, ][1997 ], [it ][was]directed to consider his case as [per ][Rules ][ald ][was]appointed as Helper [(B) ]in [the ][y'ear ][1998.]

10. With regard to the case of Shri K.Ramesh, it [is]submitted that the land [was ][acquired ][in ][the ][year ][1988 and]the land losers certificate [lvas issued ][in ][the ][year ][1989 and]

his father Shri Kaniti Seetaramulu nominated his son foremployment. Though not registered, Shri Ramesh alongwit}r 26 others filed O.A.No.776 of 1996 before the Tribunalto consider their cases for employment. The Tribunal, videorder, dated 25.06.1996, gave directions to the Collector toscrutinize the applications of all the applicants inO.A.No.776 of 1996 and to forward the names of theapplicants who are found eligible for the emplo5rment. ShriRamesh registered his application on 16.10.1998. It wasstated by the District Collector, Khammam vide letterNo.HWP(M)/R ILL-27 /2OO2l330, dated L9.rL.2Oo2, that thecase of Shri Ramesh cannot be considered as he registeredhis name for employment after a long lapse of nine yearsignoring the guidelines. It was also stated by the learnedcounsel that it came to light that persons had obtained landlosers certihcate by fraudulent means and hence the landlosers certificates were verified through the DistrictCollector, Khammam. The project Ofhcer, Integrated TribalDevelopment Agency (ITDA), Bhadrachalam was appointedas Commissioner of enquiry and after conducting a detailedenquiry, the Project Officer submitted detailed report on 05.05.2005, in [which ][he ][certified ][t]nat ][79 land ][losers ][are]genuine and they [should ][be given ][employment ][in ][HWP(M)']In the list of [79 ][land, ][losers, ][the ][case ][of Shri ][Ramesh ][was]found and [he was ][called ][for ][interview ][for ][considering his]case for emPlolT [nent.]

1 1. It is also [submitted ][that ][in ][the ][case ][of ][one ][Shri]Muttaiah, [who was ][a ][land ][loser, was catled ][for an ][interview]on 14.07.1991 [and he could ][not ][be ][empanelled ][as ][he ][was]over aged. [Latet ]' [his ][son ][Shri ][Irmaraju made ][an]for [employment. ][By ][letter]application, [dated]13.08.2001, dated 09.11.2001,it was informed [that he ][could ][not ][be]considered [at belated ][stage as ][he ][could ][not ][prefer ][his ][claim]within one [year ][from ][the ][date of ][acquisition' ][That ][he ][filed ][a]Writ Petition [No.24235 ][of ][2OO7 ][and ][this ][Court ][passed ][an]order on [L6.11.2OO7 ][granting ][liberty ][to ][make ][an application]to consider his [case ][for ][employment ][under land ][loser ][quota']However in [his ][case, ][no ][direction ][was ][received ][by the ][third]respondent [from the ][District ][Collector']

12. The learned [Standing Counsel ][for ][the ][3'd respondent]a-fter submitting [the ][facts of ][individuals ][as ][stated supra ][has]

contended that it was only on the basis of Court orders andsubsequent decisions of the State Revenue authorities, thebelated claims of the nominees were considered and in thewrit petitioner's case, no directions were issued at arry pointof time by the Tribunal or by the Court or by the Revenueauthorities. Hence, the petitioner is not entifled foremplo5,,rnent as he has made an application for employmentafter a long lapse of time.subsequent decisions of the State Revenue authorities, thebelated claims of the nominees were considered and in thewrit petitioner's case, no directions were issued at arry pointof time by the Tribunal or by the Court or by the Revenueauthorities. Hence, the petitioner is not entifled foremplo5,,rnent as he has made an application for employmentafter a long lapse of time.

13. Heard the rival contentions, perused the MemoNo.813/IDl81-2, dated OT .OZ .tg8t and material papersannexed with the writ affidavit. A few facts which arerelevant are being considered in detail to arrive at aconclusion and they are as follows:

13.1 Perused the land losers certificate, dated 06.06.19g6,in Rc.No.B/445/86 issued by the Mandal Revenue Ofhcer,Ashwapuram. On keen perusal of the said certificate, it isnoticed that the land loser has nominated Shri pavamLakshmaiah (farher of the writpetitioner) foremployment/job in HWpM. A perusal of the dependentcertificate in D.Dis.No.B/404/2OOl, dated OZ.OS.2OOI, issued by the MRO on the strength of report of VillageAdministrative Officer certihed the writ petitioner asdependent of Shri Payam Lakshmaiah at serial No.3 andthat his age is 29 years and that he is married. It can befairly concluded from the dependent certificate that thepetitioner had attained the age of 21 years in the year 1994as the age of the writ petitioner was mentioned as 29 yearsin the dependent certificate. The writ petitioner should havemade an application within a reasonable period of 3 yearsfrom the year of his attaining 21 years (majority). No suchapplication has been made.

13.2 On a perusal of ttre letter, dated O9. 1 1.2003, inRc.No.D-1605/2OO3 addressed by RDO, Paloncha toAdministrative Officer, HWP, it is noticed that arepresentation was made to the Collector requesting for jobunder the land losers quota by the writ petitioner. The saidletter, dated 09.1 1.2003, was forwarded to theAdministrative Officer, HWP. Subsequently, another letter,dated 23.12.2006, seems to have been addressed by theunder the land losers quota by the writ petitioner. The saidletter, dated 09.1 1.2003, was forwarded to theAdministrative Officer, HWP. Subsequently, another letter,dated 23.12.2006, seems to have been addressed by thewrit petitioner to the Administrative Officer, HWP(M). In II:I

I

reply to the letter, dated 23.12.2006, the Administrative Off,rcer by letter, dated OL.O2.2OO7 , videNo.HWPM/(Rl/LLl07 1126, has intimated that the requestof the writ petitioner could not be acceded as he has notregistered his application within the prescribed time.

13.3. This Court is of the opinion that the writ petitionerwas not diligent enough in making an application within areasonable time immediately on attaining the age of 21years (majority). The schemes of employment of suchnature are not perennial. They cease to exist after a certainperiod of time on completion of the purpose for which theyhave been initiated i.e., provi<iing employment. It isimperative that a person who seeks an employment undersuch scheme(s) has to be diligent and approach theconcerned authorities within time prescribed by the schemeor witllin a reasonable time in exceptional cases. In thepresent case, the petitioner was not diligent enough andsought for employment after a long lapse of time, in otherwords, there was dela_v on the part of the petitioner. Thefact that the age of the petitioner presently is around 49

years cannot be lost sight of, for, no employment cal beoffered at such an age under any scheme. For the aforesaidreasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that thereare no merits and the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

14. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. There shallbe no order as to costs.

Miscellaleous petitions, if any, pending in this WritPetition, shall stald closed.Petition, shall stald closed.

SD/. P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBAASSISTANT [REGISTRAR]//TRUE [COPY//]SEON OFFICER

To,

1 313 33 I 8Ei'"X#ffi!t [# ][[''f,'XT':LB!fi ][tY,soricitor ][Genera ][r ][or ][r ][nd ][ia ][)'].l'}lEg:1r'il;.'ia-JlJ:"llg1r,6l?s;l'i.1'-'l""EY""lorreransanaatHyderabad. [OUT]

4. Two CD [CoPies.]

BSKGJP

$

/

HIGH COURT

DATED:2911212023

ORDER

WP.No.5721 ot 2008

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS\, cDtee,b----s\r\#

,1iAr()/(..,,,)a)()15t(-Lg?n11u/ItL)r^i;,i.'1/+:L D;e,,,'.-; r'.-\