S.K Phaujdar, J.:— The fifteen petitioners lost their lands as the same were acquired by the State of U.P for the National Thermal Power Corporation Divyapur, Etawah, in 1986. They came up with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to provide employment to the dependents of the petitioners or to the persons nominated by them in terms of the scheme of rehabilitation. The writ petition was presented on 1.11.91 and the respondents were directed to come up with counter affidavit. No interim mandamus was issued.
2. It was the case of the petitioners that at the time of acquisition of their lands assurances were given that in addition to compensations paid to them for their respective lands, the displaced person would also be entitled to employment under the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC in short). In this respect the petitioner relied on a Government Order dated 21.11.83 confirmed by another Government Order dated 20/28.1.86. These two Government Orders were appended at Annexures No. 1 and 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner gave a chart as per Annexure No. 3 to indicate who were the dependents for whom employment was sought. They arranged a demonstration before the District Magistrate, Etawah, claiming implementation of the Government Orders and ultimately a compromise was arrived at on 16.6.87 which was a tripartite one between the State and the displaced persons and the N.T.P.C Even thereafter the N.T.P.C were finding some excuse or the other to delay the matter of employment of the petitioners or their dependents. It was asserted that the Government Orders were having statutory force and the liability of the State thereunder could not be denied. Only under these circumstances the aforesaid prayer for employment under the N.T.P.C was claimed. Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition is a Government Order dated 21.11.83 which spoke of providing jobs to persons whose lands were acquired for industrial units owned by or under the control of the State Government. Employment was to be given under this Government Order for posts drawing wages up to Rs. 500/-. The Government Order directed that the eligible displaced persons at par with others be given priority in such appointments.
3. Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition is another Government Order dated 20.1.86 It also related to offering employment to the dependents of displaced persons, displacement having been caused for acquisition of land for industrial units. It only directed that in giving employment in industrial units the local candidate be given priority and here also it was stated that the order would apply to such industrial units which were owned by or under the control of the State Government. It spoke of a norm of giving priority and indicated who would be included in the family of a displaced person. This letter further indicated that persons whose total lands were acquired were to be given top priority to be followed by the persons most of whose lands were acquired and next in priority would be such persons only part of whose lands were acquired.
4. Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition gave a list of the displaced persons alongwith the dependants of those persons who sought employment and their relationships with the displaced persons.
5. Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition is said to be a copy of the tripartite agreement arrived at in a meeting attended by the officers of the administration of the N.T.P.C as also by the representatives of the displaced persons. There was a clause in Annexure No. 4 to the effect that in appointing persons in class IV service under the N.T.P.C preference will be given to the agriculturist of the affected villages. If any names were called from the employment exchange only the names of the candidates from the affected villages would be forwarded.
6. The State filed a counter affidavit through an official of Etawah Collectorate. It was stated that the question of employment related to N.T.P.C only and not to the State. The averments of Dharna or compromise as stated in the writ petition were not accepted. Counter affidavit was also filed on behalf of the N.T.P.C It was sworn by Sri G.C Surdeo, the Senior Personnel Officer of N.T.P.C at Divyapur, on 18.12.91 It was asserted in this counter affidavit that the N.T.P.C was a Government of India Enterprise and for Divyapur Gas Power Project about 200 acres of private land was acquired by the State of U.P for the N.T.P.C The number of persons displaced by such acquisition was more than three hundred. Compensation for the lands acquired was determined and paid and distributed to the oustees. The N.T.P.C asserted that there was no legal compulsion to provide employment to the land oustees who, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, were entitled only to monetary compensation. However, on a humanitarian approach to the problem the N.T.P.C had been providing employment to the land oustees according to its policy as per Annexure No. 1 to the counter affidavit. The N.T.P.C admitted that only seven posts of Majdoor lay vacant on the date of the filing of the affidavit but even those seven could not be filled up due to ban on recruitment. For petitioner No. 7 the N.T.P.C clearly stated that he was not a land oustee (petitioner No. 7 was Brij Kishore son of Ram Shankar). It was further asserted that at no point of time the N.T.P.C had given any assurance to provide job to any of the members of the family of displaced persons. It was also contended that the Government Orders referred to in the writ petition were not applicable to the N.T.P.C as it was not a State Government owned industry or under the control of the State Government. It was contended that even if there had been any such undertaking to provide employment, the same stood withdrawn with effect from 3.2.86 An office memorandum relied in this respect is Annexure II to the counter affidavit. The averments of Dhama before the Collector and a consequential agreement were also denied. The document in Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition was described only as minutes of a meeting held on 16.6.87 Even according to those minutes, the agriculturists of the affected village would be given preference in employment and there was no agreement to employ them. 43 persons from amongst the family members of the displaced persons were already employed in Auriya Gas Power Project (Divyanpur). Even the Government order be read as applicable to the N.T.P.C the same had no statutory force and the N.T.P.C would be guided by the instructions of the Central Government dated 3.2.86 There was nothing to infer that the N.T.P.C was violating the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution or of Articles 39(a), 41 and 46. 43 persons who were employed in the N.T.P.C were so employed not on the basis of the G.O's but on the basis of its own policy by the N.T.P.C on humanitarian consideration. According to the N.T.P.C, the petitioners were not entitled to any relief by way of mandamus as they had no right which could have been enforced through a writ of mandamus.
7. On facts the N.T.P.C contended that the petitioners No. 2, 4, 6, 11, 13, 14 and 15 were persons whose land measured less than 1 acres as per records available with the answering respondents and they could not have come in the priority list for being given any preference. The son of the petitioner No. 1 was already interviewed and his employment or non-employment would be subject to the requirements and availability of sanctioned vacancy. The son and nominee of petitioner No. 3 did not meet the minimum educational standard required for employment in N.T.P.C The nominee of the petitioner No. 5 was his nephew and he did not fall in the category of a member of his family. The nominee of Ram Shankar was his grand-son who again was not within the definition of “family.” The son and nominee of the petitioner No. 9 was interviewed by the committee and he was unable to read or write even in Hindi, his certificate of passing VIIIth standard was disbelieved. The petitioner No. 10 had been informed that his nominee was considered for employment, but the nomination form sent to him was never returned duly filled in. The nominee of petitioner No. 11 was again his grand-son and was not within the definition of family.
8. The norm of policy set up by the N.T.P.C is in Annexure No. 1 to this counter affidavit. This policy was framed to give certain facility to the land oustees. This policy was adopted in the meeting of the Managing Committee held on 30.4.80 and 1.5.80 It required the administrative department of the project to prepare a list of persons who were land-oustees alongwith the description of the land acquired and the measurement thereof as also the compensation assessed therefor. Each family was to be treated as a unit, the family members of each family were also be indicated in a list with their ages and qualifications. The family members would include the head of the family who was the owner of the land, the spouse, the dependant sons and unmarried dependent daughters (in the absence of a son). The policy required the head of the family should give in writing his nomination from amongst the family members as to who would get the benefit in the form of employment or shop allotment etc. Nominations once made would not be changed except under special circumstances and that too for once only. The list of the nominees was to be sent to the employment exchange with a request to forward their names as and when any employment was to be given. The policy spoke of priority as well in view of the large number of land oustees and in view of the fact that it was not possible to provide to all of them employment under the N.T.P.C and to allot shops. There were about 800 land oustees of Singrauli and 70 percent of them were illiterate and were qualified only for appointment at the lowest level of majdoor. Even at its peak point of running, the N.T.P.C could have provided jobs to not more than 600 workers at the unskilled level. As per policy land oustees in whose case less than one acre of land have been acquired and compensation paid would be included in a separate list to get the last priority. Land oustees in whose case compensation of an amount more than fifty thousand up to one lacs had been paid would be in the last but one group for priority. Amongst the remaining land oustees two groups would be made; (i) those whose entire land had been taken and compensation paid, and (ii) those whose part of land had been taken and compensation paid. The facilities to be offered were of three types, employment, shop allotment and petty contract work and only one of the facility would be available to the nominee of one land oustee subject to the above priority criteria. Some reservation was also spoken of in the policy for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and ex-service men.
9. By a further counter affidavit the N.T.P.C indicated that the land acquisition proceedings in Divyapur Gas Based power station of the N.T.P.C was started in 1986. All the oustees were paid compensations and acquired land was made available to the N.T.P.C on 16.12.86 The project was constructed with the aid of loan from the World Bank and as per advice of the World Bank, rehabilitation measures were taken for the land oustees and the aforesaid guidelines were adopted. About 375 families were affected by the acquisition. The policy for rehabilitation was revised in 1993 and the N.T.P.C had made provisions for education, training, water project, health care etc. as also income generating scheme. An objection was taken that Janki Prasad had filed further affidavit in his personal capacity and had not filed any authorisation from the other petitioners and as such it was not maintainable. It was asserted that there was no legal compulsion on the part of the N.T.P.C to provide employment to the land oustees. The factual averments in the affidavit of Janki Prasad were also challenged and denied and/or clarified.
10. A writ or direction can be issued if there was any legal right of the petitioners and if there is a denial or infringement of such right. This legal right has been claimed by the petitioners on the basis of certain Government orders and on the basis of certain document, said to be an agreement by the N.T.P.C to provide jobs to the petitioners. Before the present aspects are discussed it is desirable that the case laws relied upon be taken up.
11. The case reported in (1992) 4 SCC 243 covers a case of compromise between the Improvement Trust, the State Government and the persons whose lands were acquired on the point of rate of compensation. It was held that the State could not back out from the compromise. In the case reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court at page 512 there was acquisition of land for construction of a dam and looking to the displacement of a large number of persons belonging to weaker sections the Supreme Court gave certain directions including that of providing alternative land to the displaced persons and if that was not possible to alternative employment to assure minimum wages. This arrangement was to be made in addition to the compensation paid. In the case reported in AIR 1994 Allahabad at page 123, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court ruled that in the writ jurisdiction the High Court could interfere with the decision a quasi-judicial authority only where the authority had acted arbitrarily or in violation of natural justice. In another decision by the Allahabad High Court, as reported in 1994 (24) Allahabad Law Report at 38, it was held that being the Government of a welfare State it was open to the Government to impose a condition of giving employment to a person whose land was acquired. The Development Authority for whom the land was being acquired might not accept such a condition. In that case the Government was not bound to acquire the land. Such condition could be incorporated in an agreement under Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act.
12. In another writ petition (W.P No. 10226 of 1990) Allahabad High Court directed the Central Warehousing Corporation to provide employment to the petitioners whenever the next vacancies occurred. This direction was given in view of the averments that such employment would not be given for absence of vacancy. The Court had considered the Government Orders in this connection and held that under these Government Orders the petitioners were entitled to employment by reason of their loss of land which were acquired by the Government.
13. On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the question of promissory estoppel could not have applied in the present set of facts as the land was acquired not upon any promise given by the N.T.P.C In this respect another decision was relied on as reported in (1979) 2 SCC 409 : AIR 1979 Supreme Court at page 621. It was observed that true principle of promissory estoppel seems to be that where one party had, by his words or conduct, made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which was intended to create legal relationship to arise, in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party, the promise would be binding on the party making it. It was contended in the cage at our acquisition of land, parting with the same and acceptance of compensation were not results of any promise given by the N.T.P.C
14. On the question of issuance of writ of mandamus the Supreme Court observed in the case reported in (1977) 4 SCC 145 : AIR 1977 Supreme Court at page 2149 that a writ of mandamus can be granted in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation.
15. There are factual assertions by the parties as to the status of the petitioners as members of the family of the land oustees, their qualifications and the extent of the land acquired from each. These facts may not be gone into by the writ court. As indicated above, this court is to see if there had been any statutory obligations on the part of the N.T.P.C to provide employment to the land oustees or if there had been any contract between the N.T.P.C and the land oustees which would stop the N.T.P.C from denying their liability to give employment to them. The Government Orders relied upon in this respect have been referred to in the writ petition. Annexure No. 1 is a letter dated 21.11.83 and a reading thereof indicate that it applied to such industrial units which were owned by the State Government or were under its control Only in such industrial units employment of the land oustees under certain conditions was directed. Annexure No. 2 is a letter from the Joint Secretary Government of U.P, addressed to all the Collectors. It is dated 30.1.86 and through it a copy of the Government order dated 15.6.85 was forwarded which had been annexed to this Annexure No. 2. The Government order dated 15.6.85 also speaks of employment of displaced persons in industrial units established under the ownership or under the control of the State Government. It gives certain guidelines for such employment, no doubt, but there is nothing to indicate in the averments or in the annexures that the N.T.P.C is an industrial unit owned by the State Government or controlled by it. Rather it was asserted by the N.T.P.C that it was a Central Government undertaking. It may not, therefore, be inferred that the two Government orders referred to in the writ petition cast any statutory duty upon the N.T.P.C to give any employment to the land oustees. When there is no statutory obligation created the claim may not be enforced through a writ petition against the N.T.P.C
16. We may next come to the alleged agreement as per Annexure No. 4 to the Writ Petition. It is in fact not an agreement but the minutes of the meeting dated 16.6.87 in the office of the N.T.P.C attended by the agriculturists, the N.T.P.C and the district administration. In Clause VIII of these minutes certain statement is there. Translated in English these statements would read as follows: “In the appointment in the fourth grade which would be made in the N.T.P.C priority will be given to the cultivators of the affected villagers for employment in other categories. If any names are called from the employment exchange the employment officer would give priority in forwarding the names of the persons of the affected villagers.” Barring this clause there is no other averment in the minutes regarding employment. The words used in this clause were “affected villages” and “cultivators.” This was in respect of giving priority in employment to the cultivators of the affected villages and there is no suggestion that the land oustees will be given any preference in the matter of employment.
17. The land oustees, however, are not totally to be deprived. The N.T.P.C itself had taken a policy decision as per the guidelines made in 1986 and revised in 1993 to provide all-round facility to the land oustees for rehabilitation of the land oustees. This was a welfare measure taken by the N.T.P.C and, as indicated above, this could not be read as a promise to act as promissory estoppel upon the N.T.P.C as the land oustees had not done anything on the basis of such unilateral offer. They must, therefore, depend on the due execution of the policy only. There had been no agreement or contract between the N.T.P.C and the land oustees. There had been no agreement between the State Government and the N.T.P.C at the time of acquisition of the land towards providing employment to the land oustees and as such the question of implementation of the agreement does not arise at all.
18. Under the above circumstances, no writ of mandamus may be issued on the N.T.P.C to give employment to the land oustees. It must be spoken in the same breath that the N.T.P.C must, however, be strict in compliance of its own guidelines and there must not be any pick and choose in an arbitrary manner. The N.T.P.C is to consider the claim of each petitioner in the light of its own guidelines to see if any employment could be given to him, keeping in view the position of vacancy and other compelling considerations before it. With these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.
19. Petition Dismissed.