Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sonal Prapanna Tripathi v. State Of U.P. Thru' Chief Secretary, U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 17848 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7892 (18 April 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.17848 of 2006

Sonal Prapanna Tripathi


State of U.P.  and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court for following relief:

" issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to give job/service to the petitioner as per his qualification in the wake of Government Order No. 20 (6) 195-26 Re-13 (Revenue Dept)-13 Lucknow dated 29-2-1996 as clarified in Assurance letter dated 23.3.2001 (Annexure A IV) by which justice may be done with the petitioner"

Brief fact, as it emanates from the record, is that land belonging to the father of the petitioner was acquired by U.P. Petrochemical Project, Pata District Auraiya. Petitioner submits that in terms of Government Order dated 29.02.1996, he was entitled to get appointment. In this regard, petitioner submits that  his father also filled up nomination form. Petitioner has contended that various request has been made for appointment being offered to the petitioner, but no heed was paid to the same. Petitioner has contended that various other similarly situated incumbents have been offered appointment, whereas petitioner has been discriminated. Complaining inaction, present writ petition has been filed.

On the matter being taken today, claim set up by the petitioner has been opposed by Gas Authority of India Limited represented by Sri Siddharth Singh, Advocate, by contending that petitioner has got no legal right to claim appointment and the claim of petitioner is misconceived.

Before proceeding to advert to the claim of petitioner, it would be relevant to note that Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar Vs. District Magistrate, Agra, 2005 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C.118 has deprecated the issuance of such Government Orders/Circulars, providing employment to  one member of the family, whose land has been acquired over and above the compensation awarded under law. Relevant paragraphs 20 to 24 of the said judgment are being quoted below:

"20. It is a general rule that appointment in the public service should be made by inviting  applications through open advertisement and strictly on merit so that  every citizen should get equal opportunity in the matter of appointment. Thus, rule should be adhered to in the matter of any public employment or appointment. Neither the  State Government nor its instrumentalities nor any public authority can deviate from this common rule of appointment an if any other procedure or mode is adopted, it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India which ensures and guarantees equal opportunity to all citizens in the matter of appointment to any office or of any other employment under the State. However, some exceptions to the general rule for public employment or appointment is also recognized which is commonly known as appointment on compassionate ground which is evolved purely on humanitarian ground and in the interest of justice. this rule was made to meet certain contingencies and to give appointment to a dependent of an employee dying in harness to prevent his family from destitution.

21. The Land Acquisition Act is a self contained Code and provides the procedure to be followed for acquisition as well as for assessment of the valuation and payment of fair and just compensation as per market value of the land interest @12% is also given from the date of publication of the Notification vide vide Section 23 (1-A). Besides that, a sum of 30% on such market value is also paid as solatium for distress and for inconveniences or difficulties caused to the person on account of compulsory acquisition of land vide Section 23 (2) of the Act. Therefore, a person whose land is acquired not only gets adequate compensation as per market value of the land but also gets interest on the amount of compensation as @ 12% from the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act as ell as an amount of solatium, which is 30% of the amount of compensation. Neither the Land Acquisition  Act nor the Regulations provides that in the event of  acquisition of the land one of the family members of the landlord shall be given employment in addition to the amount of compensation. Therefore, in the absence of any statutory provision or any promise, the petitioner respondent cannot claim appointment as a matter of right nor can be respondent make such appointment.

22. There is no provision under the Land Acquisition Act under which the Circular dated 28.12.1974 could be issued. Whatever compensation has to be given for acquisition of the land is provided under the Land Acquisition Act itself which is a self contained Code. any G.O. providing for any further benefit not mentioned in the Land Acquisition Act would be inconsistent with the intention of Parliament as contained in the Land Acquisition Act. Hence any such G.O. would be violative of the Land Acquisition Act and would hence be invalid. Such a G.O. will also violate Article 16 of the Constitution a already mentioned above.

23. That apart, in our opinion, the aforesaid G.O. is wholly unworkable. the record shows that the petitioner had only 12 biswas and ten biswansi land in his share which was acquired. Thus only about half a bigha of petitioner's land was acquired  in the present case. If the Circular dated 28.12.1974 is given a literal interpretation it would mean that even if one square yard land of a person is acquired one of his family member s would have to be given employment. This would be wholly unreasonable and arbitrary.

24. The number of jobs available in this country is very limited and jobs cannot be given in this manner violating Article 16 of the Constitution."

As per Full Bench judgment relief claimed for his unsustainable. Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Calcutta Port Trust vs. Deba Prasad Beg AIR 1994 SC 2137, for the proposition that uprooted person should be provided employment. Full Bench of this Court has noted aforementioned judgment and has not approved  the same.

Much stress has been laid by the petitioner on the fact that similarly situated persons have been offered appointment. In the writ petition no reference has been given  of other incumbents, who have been offered appointment. Mere vague statement of fact has been made that similarly situated persons have been offered appointment. Even in the representations dated 25.09.2005 and 20.12.2005 moved by the petitioner  annexed with the writ petition, no details have been given of the land oustee, who have been benefited and blessed with the appointment. Petitioner cannot be given any advantage or benefit out of this vague and evasive statement of fact. However, as per judgment of Full Bench even if any land oustee  has been illegally offered appointment, qua illegal appointment no parity can be claimed, as such no writ can be issued in favour of the petitioner.

Consequently, writ petition fails and is dismissed.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.