State Must Implement Rehabilitation Employment Schemes In True Letter And Spirit To Compensate Displaced Families: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The High Court held that when the State formulates a rehabilitation policy to employ members of displaced or uprooted families, the authorities are duty-bound to implement the scheme in its true letter and spirit, and the beneficiaries are entitled to enforce the terms of such policy.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that once the Government frames a policy to employ a member of a displaced family whose land has been acquired for public purposes, the State cannot deny such a benefit on technical grounds.
The Court emphasised that when a policy is intended to ensure social security, its terms are enforceable and must be honoured.
The Court was hearing a writ appeal filed by the State challenging an order by which a Single Judge had directed consideration of the writ petitioners’ claims for employment under the displaced persons quota.
The Division Bench of Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, while dismissing the petition, reaffirmed that “when a policy/scheme is formulated by the State for rehabilitation to provide employment to a member of the displaced/uprooted family to ensure social security, the State authorities are duty bound to implement the policy/scheme in true letter and spirit and beneficiaries under said policy/scheme are entitled to claim the benefits provided under the scheme and the terms of the policy can be enforced”.
The State was represented by the Government Pleader, while Advocate MR Tagore represented the respondents.
Background
The petitioners belonged to families whose lands were acquired for the Telugu Ganga Project (TGP). Although the acquisition occurred before 1984, the actual displacement took place in 2005 when the project became operational.
The State had issued G.O.M., providing that 50% of vacancies in specified project posts shall be reserved for displaced persons or their dependents. Initially, the G.O.M. prescribed a one-year limitation for submitting applications. This condition was later relaxed, clarifying that the one-year limit would not apply to those displaced before 15.04.1986.
The petitioners’ names were included in the master eligibility list prepared in 2009, and several candidates junior to them in the same list were granted employment pursuant to orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in earlier matters.
Their applications, however, were rejected by the Superintendent Engineer on the grounds of delay and non-submission of certain documents. The learned Single Judge set aside the rejection and directed reconsideration.
Consequently, the State appealed.
Court’s Observation
The Andhra Pradesh High Court examined the statutory scheme, the policy framework under G.O., the relaxation of the one-year rule, and the consistent approach adopted in several earlier Tribunal orders directing that the one-year limitation cannot disqualify displaced families whose lands were acquired before issuance of the G.O.M.
The Bench noted that the petitioners’ lands were acquired before 1984 and their names had been validly included in the 2009 master eligibility list. It further observed that other similarly placed candidates, some placed even below the petitioners in the eligibility list, had already been appointed pursuant to Tribunal orders that had attained finality after dismissal of the State’s SLP by the Supreme Court.
The Court clarified that the subsequent Government memos relied upon by the State could not override the initial G.O.Ms and the relaxation issued in 1987. These memos, it held, had no relevance to the petitioners’ situation, especially when their eligibility had been recognised in the master list and appointments had been made from the same list.
The Court emphasised that the objective of G.O.Ms was to provide rehabilitation and livelihood support to displaced families. In this context, it reiterated that “the State authorities are duty bound to implement the policy/scheme in true letter and spirit” and that where the policy exists, its terms can be enforced by beneficiaries.
The Bench placed reliance on the principles laid down in Anil Kumar v. Union of India (2019), where the Supreme Court held that when a policy exists employing displaced persons, its terms are enforceable.
The Bench also referred to State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar (2019), noting that a compassionate appointment, though not a right, must be granted when a valid policy exists. Further support was drawn from M. Dillibabu v. TANGEDCO, where the Madras High Court held that authorities cannot evade commitments made under rehabilitation schemes for land losers.
The Court additionally noted the broader social context, observing that displacement uproots families from their livelihood and that unfulfilled promises erode public trust. Hence, the State must avoid technical objections and ensure the timely implementation of rehabilitation measures.
Conclusion
The Division Bench upheld the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ appeal.
It held that rejection of the petitioners’ claims was unsustainable, contrary to the relaxed policy framework, inconsistent with earlier decisions, and violative of the State’s obligation to implement rehabilitation policies in full measure.
The authorities were directed to consider the petitioners’ applications in accordance with G.O.Ms, upon submission of documents.
Cause Title: State of Andhra Pradesh & Others v. Rajola Jagannadha Reddy & Others (Neutral Citation: APHC010135942023)
Appearances
Appellants: Government Pleader for Services
Respondents: Advocate M.R. Tagore