Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from acquisition of nearly 20,000 acres of land in 1953-54 for establishment of Rourkela Steel Plant, a major public sector undertaking. Residents of villages, including Jhirpani Resettlement Colony, were displaced and paid compensation under Land Acquisition Act. The State Government had assured alternative sites and jobs, and later T.N. Singh Formula recommended employing at least one member from each displaced family. Petitioners, residents of Jhirpani, filed writ petition under Article 32 in 1992 seeking employment for all erstwhile residents and descendants, or preferential treatment, alleging that despite agreements in 1981 and 1988, many displaced persons remained unemployed. They relied on Article 21 right to livelihood and promissory estoppel. Respondents SAIL denied allegations, stating it employed 4557 displaced persons though only about 2901 families were affected, surrendered 171.50 acres for resettlement, shared resettlement costs, and argued petition was filed after 30-35 years with second and third generation claims violating Articles 14 and 16. SAIL also cited overstaffing and 1986 policy decision against future employment. The court examined T.N. Singh Formula letter of 25 July 1973 which showed no statutory scheme but a fair advice. Court rejected Article 21 challenge, holding land acquisition under Land Acquisition Act with compensation followed due process; Olga Tellis did not require employment for every family member; such demand would violate Article 14. Court found one member per family formula satisfied letter and spirit as SAIL employed more persons than affected families. Promissory estoppel claim failed due to absence of legal entitlement. Though petition suffered delay, court considered merits. Learned Solicitor General informed that 247 persons were identified as eligible and a scheme existed with 80% for Mandira Dam displaced and 20% for these persons; court directed SAIL to increase quota to 40% each year to expedite absorption due to age bar of 35. Petition dismissed with no costs, subject to that direction.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Livelihood - Article 21 of Constitution of India, 1950 - Land Acquisition and Compensation - The petitioners claimed that acquisition of land deprived every adult member and future generations of livelihood, requiring employment to all; the court held that since land was acquired under Land Acquisition Act and compensation paid, the procedure established by law was followed, and Article 21 does not require employment to every member of each displaced family; extending such right would be against Article 14 (Paras 5-6). B) Administrative Law - Employment Policy for Displaced Persons - T.N. Singh Formula - The Central Government advised employment of at least one member per displaced family; this was not a legal scheme but a fair measure; SAIL employed 4557 persons against 2901 affected families, satisfying the letter and spirit of the formula; the court held no violation of fundamental rights even if no employment was offered (Paras 3-5). C) Promissory Estoppel - Government Assurances - Petitioners relied on state government's press statement and T.N. Singh Formula to claim employment for all descendants; the court found no legal entitlement and held that payment of compensation and employment of one member per family satisfied any assurance; promissory estoppel did not warrant direction to employ all adult members and descendants (Paras 4-6). D) Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Petitioners approached Supreme Court in 1992, about 30-35 years after acquisition and plant setup in 1959; despite delay and incorrect facts, court considered merits but found no substance in grievance; delay could have been ground for refusal but not used (Para 5). E) Employment Quota - Displaced Persons from Mandira Dam - Ongoing scheme allocated 80% vacancies to Mandira Dam displaced and 20% to 247 identified Rourkela displaced; court directed SAIL to expedite absorption by increasing the quota from 20% to 40% each year due to age bar of 35 (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether respondents were bound to give employment to all erstwhile residents and descendants displaced by Rourkela Steel Plant; whether one member per family formula violated Article 21 right to livelihood; whether promissory estoppel applied; whether petition suffered from delay and laches.
Final Decision
Petition dismissed with no order as to costs; Court directed SAIL to expedite absorption of 247 identified eligible displaced persons by increasing their quota from 20% to 40% each year due to age bar of 35 years.
Law Points
- Right to livelihood under Article 21 does not extend to providing employment to every member of each family displaced by land acquisition
- Acquisition under Land Acquisition Act with payment of compensation follows procedure established by law
- Employment of one member per displaced family under T.N. Singh Formula satisfies constitutional obligations
- Promissory estoppel does not create legal right to employment for descendants
- Delay and laches may be considered but court may still examine merits
- Government policy decision not to give future employment is permissible
- Employment quota for displaced persons must be implemented expeditiously considering age bar
