http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: BUTU PRASAD KHUMBHAR & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. &ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/03/1995

BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  Supl.  (2) 225 JT 1995 (3)   428  1995 SCALE  (2)539

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: R.M. SAHAI, J. 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

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%

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

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. 435