Employment is Not a Vested Right and Cannot be Claimed After Delay by Land Losers.

The appellant’s family land was acquired in 2006 by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the TANGEDCO Thermal Power Project

Compensation was paid and alternate house sites were provided in 2010 and 2012

Seeking further relief, the appellant and other land losers applied for employment in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, claiming a promise was made at the time of acquisition

The writ court dismissed the original petition (WP.No.428 of 2023) on February 20, 2024, citing the claim as belated and lacking a legal right

The appellant challenged this dismissal via Writ Appeal before the Division Bench.

1. Whether the family members of land losers have a vested or absolute legal right to seek employment in addition to statutory compensation and alternate land

2. Whether an application for employment filed approximately 8 years after land acquisition can be entertained or if it is barred by delay and laches

3. Whether a person whose land is classified as 'Mandaveli Poramboke' (Government land) is entitled to employment benefits under the land loser category

The court applied the statutory principles of Land Acquisition laws regarding compensation as a mandatory right, while distinguishing "employment" as a concession rather than an absolute right

It relied on the precedent set in Contempt Appeal No.1 of 2020 (decided on 08.06.2022), where a Division Bench set aside directions to provide employment to land losers

The court further upheld the doctrine of laches, emphasizing that stale claims for employment cannot be entertained after significant time gaps (8 years) from the date of acquisition

The Court reasoned that compensation for land acquisition is a statutory right whereas providing employment is merely a concession granted on a priority basis subject to specific terms and conditions

In this case, the acquisition occurred in 2006, and the appellant had already received statutory compensation and alternate land by 2012

The Court found that filing an application for employment 8 years after the acquisition was an unsustainable delay

Furthermore, the Court noted that many applications were submitted by ineligible family members (such as grandchildren or daughters-in-law) for whom no vested right exists

Critically, the Court observed that the appellant’s land was classified as Mandaveli Poramboke, meaning the land belonged to the Government; while the appellant was eligible for compensation for improvements/possession, he could not claim employment benefits reserved for private land owners whose proprietary rights were extinguished

It held that providing employment to land losers is not an absolute right and cannot be claimed after an inordinate delay

The Court affirmed the Single Judge's finding that the appellant was ineligible for employment because the land in question was Government-classified Poramboke land

The order of the writ court dated 20.02.2024 was upheld, and no costs were awarded