Case Note & Summary
These writ petitions were filed by project affected persons whose lands had been acquired for a public project. They sought employment as per the scheme in force at the time of acquisition. The authorities rejected their applications for issuance of project affected person certificates solely on the ground that they did not satisfy the norms prescribed by a subsequent Government Resolution dated 3 May 2010. The petitioners contended that their right to employment had crystallized on the date of land acquisition and that subsequent changes in policy could not adversely affect this vested right. They relied upon an earlier judgment of the same court in W.P. No. 6921 of 2010. The State opposed the petitions, arguing that the 2010 resolution was introduced to regulate the grant of employment and applied to all applications made after its issuance, and therefore the rejection was valid. The State further submitted that the earlier judgment did not consider this aspect.
The court, after hearing both sides, found that entitlement to employment accrues on the date of acquisition. It reasoned that had the landholders known at the time of consenting to acquisition that their employment entitlement could be taken away by future changes, they might have opposed the acquisition itself. Drawing a contrast with compassionate appointments—where the decisive date is when employment is offered because the need must exist then—the court held that in the present case the right crystallized at acquisition. Thus, any subsequent change in norms, including the date of application, was irrelevant. The court quashed the impugned rejection orders and directed the authorities to reconsider the applications within four months in light of the earlier judgment. The writ petitions were partly allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Employment to Project Affected Persons - Entitlement Accrual Date - General Principles - The right to employment for project affected persons crystallizes on the date of land acquisition; any subsequent change in government policy or norms cannot divest such accrued right. The court distinguished compassionate appointment where date of offer is decisive, holding that here the entitlement is rooted in the promise made at acquisition. Held, the impugned rejection orders based on Government Resolution dated 3.5.2010 were quashed and authorities directed to reconsider applications in light of earlier judgment in WP No. 6921 of 2010 (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a subsequent government resolution prescribing modified norms can be applied to deny employment to project affected persons whose lands were acquired prior to the issuance of such resolution, when the right to employment crystallized on the date of acquisition.
Final Decision
The impugned orders rejecting the applications were quashed and set aside. The concerned authorities were directed to reconsider the applications in light of the judgment dated 18th October 2010 in W.P. No. 6921 of 2010, and complete the reconsideration within four months. The writ petitions were partly allowed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- entitlement to employment for project affected persons accrues on date of land acquisition
- subsequent government resolution cannot divest vested right
- doctrine of legitimate expectation
- compassionate appointment analogy not applicable
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (08) 1
WRIT PETITION NO. 2924 OF 2013 along with WP Nos. 5219, 5300, 5301, 5347, 5348, 5404 of 2013
B.P. Dharmadhikari, Ravindra V. Ghuge
S.R. Shirsat, D.A. Bide, P.P. More (AGP)
Kalidas Namdeo Saruk, Bhausaheb s/o. Ramchandra Gonde, Sangita w/o. Mohan Zambare, Jijabai w/o. Namdeo Gore, Rambhau s/o. Nivrutti Chavan, Shakuntala w/o. Gulab Chavan, Pravin s/o. Vishwamber Karpe
The State of Maharashtra and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging rejection of applications for project affected person certificates and consequent denial of employment.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the impugned communications rejecting the demand for issuance of project affected person certificates and a direction to provide employment.
Filing Reason
The authorities rejected the applications solely on the ground that the norms prescribed by Government Resolution dated 3.5.2010 were not fulfilled, contrary to the settled position that the right accrued on the date of land acquisition.
Previous Decisions
No prior court orders mentioned; the impugned order was administrative rejection based on the 2010 Government Resolution.
Issues
Whether the right to employment for a project affected person crystallizes on the date of land acquisition or is subject to subsequent changes in government policy.
Whether Government Resolution dated 3.5.2010 prescribing modified norms could be applied to reject applications where the land acquisition occurred prior to its issuance.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the employment is part of the scheme in force at the time of land acquisition; the right crystallized then and subsequent changes cannot affect it. Reliance was placed on judgment in W.P. No. 6921 of 2010.
The State argued that Government Resolution dated 3.5.2010 was issued to regulate grant of employment and applies to all applications made thereafter; the earlier judgment did not consider this aspect.
Ratio Decidendi
For project affected persons, the entitlement to employment accrues on the date of land acquisition. Subsequent changes in government policy or norms, such as a Government Resolution issued after the acquisition, cannot retrospectively divest or impair that vested right. The date of application is irrelevant; the right already accrued is merely enforced later. This principle is distinguished from compassionate appointments, where the date of offer is decisive because the need must exist at the time of employment.
Judgment Excerpts
the entitlement to employment accrues on the date on which the land is acquired.
Had the person permitting his land to be acquired for project been then aware that his entitlement to employment would be removed some time in future because of such alterations, he might have in that situation, opposed the acquisition itself.
The entitlement already accrued is only sought to be enforced later by the person in whose favour it is so accrued.
Procedural History
The petitioners, claiming to be project affected persons, applied for certificates confirming their status for employment. The authorities rejected the applications based on Government Resolution dated 3.5.2010. The petitioners thereupon filed the present writ petitions before the High Court seeking quashing of the rejection orders. The court heard the matters finally by consent of parties.
