Butu
Prasad Khumbhar & Ors Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors [1995] INSC
205 (30 March 1995)
Sahai,
R.M. (J) Sahai, R.M. (J) Majmudar S.B. (J) R.M. Sahai, J.
CITATION:
1995 SCC Supl. (2) 225 JT 1995 (3) 428 1995 SCALE (2)539
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
1. The
question that arises for consideration in this petition filed under Article 32
of the Constitution of India, by the petitioners, who were residents of
villages which formed part of Rourkela, is whether the respondents were bound
to give employment to all the erstwhile residents and even their descendants
and in any case to treat them preferentially for employment as they or their
members of families were, displaced due to setting up of Rourkela Steel Plant
even though they were given market value for their land acquired.
2. Rourkela
Steel Plant, one of the largest steel plants was conceived in the year 1954. It
was decided to set it up at Rourkela which
at that time consisted of small villages and for this purpose nearly 20000
acres of land were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Compensation was
paid. When the project was in offing there was probably resistance by local
residents, therefore, the State Government issued statement that the displaced
persons would be given alternative sites for farming and they would be given
jobs in the steel plant. According to petitioners the hopes of the displaced
persons were belied as after the steel plant was constructed workers were
employed from outside and no offer of employment was made to the poor displaced
tribals. The petitioners claim that when the then President of India visited Rourkela
to inaugurate the first blast furnace of the Rourkela Steel Plant in 1959 a
representation was made to him by the Rourkela Displaced Persons Welfare
Committee highlighting their grievances and explaining that the alternative
sites offered to them were just an eyewash as they were at a distance of about
20 miles from the resettlement colonies and it was impossible for the displaced
persons to travel to and from and undertake any agricultural operations. It was
also pointed out that in the circumstances the only alternative was to afford
gainful employment to the displaced persons in the steel plant. It is pointed
out that in 1981 after prolonged discussions an agreement was reached between
the Rourkela Steel Plant and the displaced residents of one of the resettlement
colonies, namely Jhirpani Resettlement Colony and it was that the displaced
persons would be given em- 430 ployment at the earliest under the T.N. Singh
Formula, yet the petitioners all of whom are of Jhirpani Resettlement Colony
were not given any employment. According to petitioners the sympathetic
sentiments were echoed even in the meeting held on 29th November 1988 but the
petitioners and various other unemployed displaced persons numbering nearly
1500 whose list has been attached as Annexure 'A' to the Writ Petition could
not secure any employment. In the counter affidavit filed by the Additional
Chief Personnel Manager of Rourkela Steel Plant of Steel Authority of India
Limited (for short 'SAIL') these allegations are denied and it is stated that
the minutes dated 25th August 1981 have been fully implemented as even though
only approximately 2900 families were affected by the land acquisition yet the
company has employed 4557 displaced persons. It is further averred that in
accordance with the minutes of the meeting held on 25th August 1981 171.50 acres of land was surrendered to the State
Government for allotment to the residents of Jhirpani Resettlement Colony and
had even been handed over by the respondents to the Government. It is stated
that this petition was filed in 1952, that is, 30 to 35 years after the
acquisition and now it is even the second and third generation who are seeking
employment on the basis of descent which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution. The affidavit further states that the company has shared to
the extent of 50% the expenditure incurred in the resettlement/rehabilitation
of the families in providing infrastructure and other amenities like roads,
water supply, health care, education facilities, school etc. All the displaced
persons were given additional amount as housing subsidy of Rs.200-400/- per
family and reclamation subsidy of Rs.200/- per acre of land. Th company has
further stated to have provided basic development facilities to the peripheral
areas including the resettlement colonies and has incurred huge expenditure. It
has been pointed out that due to all this pressure the company had to cm ploy
22538 persons as against the requirement of 19500.
3.
What is described as T.N. Singh Formula shall be clear from the letter dated 25th July 1973 which is extracted below:
"With
reference to the letter cited above, I am to say that there is no specific
scheme of Govt. to provide employment to the displaced persons of Rourkela in the H.S.L. Rourkela.
However
, Shri T.N. Singh the then Steel Minister of Govt. of India during course of discussion,
advised that atleast one person of each displaced family may be provided job in
Rourkela Steel Plant. Accordingly Rourkela Land Organisation Rourkela has
prepared fam- ily history of displaced after spot inquiry.
Such
list has also bow available to the local employment exchange as well as H.S.L.
to consider their cases for appointment in H.S.L." There was thus no
scheme for employing every displaced person. But in view of the press statement
of the State Government the then Union Minister considered it reasonable that
the respondents should employ in the Plant at least one member of each family.
Whether such assurance or decision was legal and constitutional or not but it
was certainly fair and in the larger interest of displaced persons. Its
compliance as averred in the counter affidavit could not be seriously disputed.
4.
Faced with the factual difficulty which the petitioners could not success- 431
fully rebut either by filing a proper affidavit or by bringing material on
record to demonstrate that the averments in the counter affidavit were
incorrect the learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the effect of
acquisition was that it deprived not only the head of the family or the member
in whose name the land was entered in the revenue records but every adult
member suffered the injury as he was prevented from reaping the benefit from
the land both at the date when acquisition was made and even in future.
Therefore, giving employment to one person of the family of displaced persons
was violative of the constitutional guarantee under Article 21 and consequently
it was the obligation of the State to ensure that every member of the family
was given employment in the plant or in the alternative whenever the vacancy arose
it should consider them on preferential basis. The learned counsel urged that
the employment of one person of each displaced family on T.N. Singh Formula
could not deprive other members of family who were adults or would have been
adult at any time in future of their fundamental right of livelihood as
explained by this Court in Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay, Municipal
Corporation & Ors. (1985) 3 SCC 545. He urged that payment of compensation
for acquired land was a poor solace and in any case the State Government having
assured and the Central Government having advised the SAIL to give employment
to the displaced persons and the petitioners and others like them having been
kept under a promise that they shall be given employment they are precluded on
principle of promissory estoppel from backing out and claiming either that the
employment was not available or that there was over staffing or that they have
to accommodate the displaced persons of Mandira bandh. It was further urged
that apart from persons whose land had been acquired the assurance was to offer
employment to those eligible displaced persons who in consequence of setting up
of the steel plant were rendered unemployed. He also pleaded vehemently that
not only the adult members and other members of the family but even those
children who were then minor but they have now become major or they being descendants
and may be the second generation were entitled, on the same principle of bcing
deprived of their bread and butter which could have been available to them
after they became major to bc employed or at least given preference.
5.What
stands admitted is that the land was acquired in 1953-54 and the steel plant
was set up in 1959. Yet these petitioners many of whom, we are informed, are
already in employment of the respondents and that was vehemently urged by the
learned Solicitor General as a preliminary objection to the maintainability of
the petition, approached this Court in 1992 for enforcement of their rights.
That a peti- tion on incorrect facts and after such an inordinate delay which
has resulted in a generation gap normally is sufficient for refusal to exercise
the extraordinary juris- diction. However, considering the nature of the
problem and respondents' decision even in 1988 in relation to giving employment
to displaced persons it did not appear expedient to dismiss the petition on
ground of delay or the conduct of some of the petitioners in joining those who
have not been given employment. There is no satisfactory answer to the averment
in the counter affidavit that the respondent com- pany having provided
employment to 4557 displaced persons when only 2901 fami- 432 lies were
affected by the land acquisition and the assurance given was to employ only one
person of each family there does not appear much substance in the grievance
made by the petitioners. Further no details have been furnished by the
petitioners in respect of the persons whose list has been appended with the
writ petition as to whether any member of their family was given appointment by
the Steel Plant or not. There is no reason, therefore, to doubt that one person
of every displaced family whose land was acquired has been given employment
and, therefore, the letter and spirit of the scheme to accommodate the
displaced persons stood satisfied.
6.The
constitutional challenge based on Article 21 does not appear to have any
substance. In Olga Tellis (supra) it was observed by this Court that the
concept of right of life conferred was wide and farreaching and the deprivation
of the right to livelihood without following the procedure established by law
was violative of the fundamental guarantee to a citizen. Needless to say that
petitioners or their ancestors were not deprived of their land without
following the procedure established in law. Their land was taken under the Land
Acquisition Act. They were paid compensation for it. Therefore, the challenge
raised on violation of Article 21 is devoid of any merit. Even otherwise the
obligation of the State to ensure that no citizen is deprived of his livelihood
does not extend to provide employment to every member of each family displaced
in consequence of acquisition of land. Rourkela Plant was established for the
growth of the country. It is one of the prestigious steel plants, It is
established in public sector. The Government has paid market value for the land
acquired. Even if the Government or the steel plant would not have offered any
employment to any person it would not have, resulted in violation of any
fundamental right yet considering the poverty of the persons who were displaced
both the Central and the State Government took steps to ensure that each family
was protected by giving employment to at least one member in the Plant. We fail
to appreciate how such a step by the Government is violative of Article
21.
The claim of the petitioners that unless each adult member is given employment
or the future generation is ensured of a preferential claim it would be
arbitrary or contrary with the constitutional guarantee is indeed stretching
Article 21 without any regard to its scope and ambit as explained by this
Court. Truly speaking it is just the otherwise. Acceptance of such a demand
would be against Article 14.
7.The
learned Solicitor General however stated that even though the public sector
undertaking because of being over- staffed is being put to great strain and
even though the Government of India had taken a policy decision as far back as
1986 not to give employment to any one in future, yet the respondent-Steel
Plant after verification has found 247 persons eligible for being given
employment. They are will- ing to abide by it. He has pointed out that in die
meantime another darn has been constructed and the persons who had been
displaced have also been required to be accommodated and, therefore, a scheme
has been framed in which 80% displaced in consequence of Mandira Dam and 20%
out of 247 are being given employment since 1993. He stated that nearly 50
persons out of 247 have already been absorbed. We are of the opinion that
giving employment to 20% may take longer time 433 and since the age bar has
been put at 35 it would be appropriate if the SAIL expedited the absorption of
these persons by increasing their number from 20% to 40% each year.
8. In
the result, this petition fails and is dismissed subject to the observations
made in respect of 247 persons identified by the respondents. Here shall be no
order as to costs.
Back