The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that displaced persons under G.O.Ms.No.98 cannot be denied employment benefits based on cut-off dates, particularly when their lands were acquired prior to the scheme's implementation. The judgment underscores that procedural limitations cannot override substantive rights of displaced families, directing the authorities to consider the petitioner's appointment within four months.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, V. Adinarayana, a displaced person from YSR Kadapa District, challenged the rejection of his employment claim under the Displacement Employment Scheme introduced by G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986. His lands were acquired for the construction of the Pothuluri Veera Brahmendra Swami Reservoir under the Telugu Ganga Project, leading to his family's displacement upon impounding of water on 19.09.2005. Despite being a displaced person, his application for employment under the scheme was rejected on the ground that it was filed after the cut-off date of 18.09.2006.
Key Facts
- The petitioner's lands were acquired under Award No.32/87, dated 31.07.1987
- Water impounding on 19.09.2005 led to displacement of the petitioner's family
- G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, provided employment benefits to one dependent of displaced families, allocating 50% of vacancies in major/minor/power projects for Junior Assistant and below
- The petitioner submitted his employment application on 10.03.2008, after the cut-off date of 18.09.2006
- The respondents rejected his claim vide Office Order No. SE/NTR.TGP/KDP/AB/EC.5/93/M, dated 04.03.2020, citing the cut-off date
Procedural History
- W.P.No.1608 of 2020: Petitioner approached the High Court seeking directions to consider his employment claim. The Court directed the respondents to consider his case if eligible, within eight weeks
- 04.03.2020: Respondents rejected the petitioner's claim via impugned order
- W.P.No.13543 of 2019: A similar case where the High Court allowed the writ petition, directing consideration of the claimant's case without reference to the one-year limitation period, as the condition was removed by Memo No.480-LAR (2)87/2, dated 24.08.1987
- W.A.No.356 of 2023: The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's order in W.P.No.13543 of 2019 on 17.11.2025, dismissing the appeal and affirming that the cut-off date cannot bar displaced persons' claims
- Present Writ Petition (W.P.No.27276/2023): Filed challenging the rejection order dated 04.03.2020
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the impugned order dated 04.03.2020
- Directions to the respondents to consider his case for employment under the displaced persons category, as per G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the cut-off date of 18.09.2006, prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.98, could bar the employment claim of a displaced person whose lands were acquired prior to the scheme's implementation and whose displacement occurred before the cut-off date.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The issue of limitation is res integra, as settled by the High Court in W.P.No.13543 of 2019 and upheld by the Division Bench in W.A.No.356 of 2023
- The petitioner's lands were acquired under Award No.32/87, dated 31.07.1987, prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, making the cut-off date inapplicable
- The Memo No.480-LAR (2)87/2, dated 24.08.1987 removed the one-year limitation period, rendering the cut-off date irrelevant
- The respondents' reliance on the cut-off date is untenable, as the petitioner's displacement occurred due to the project for which his lands were acquired
For the Respondent
- The respondents contended that the petitioner's application, filed on 10.03.2008, was beyond the cut-off date of 18.09.2006, as prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.98
- The impounding of water on 19.09.2005 was treated as the date of displacement, and the cut-off date was fixed as 18.09.2006
- Since the petitioner failed to apply within the prescribed period, his claim was rightfully rejected
The Court's Analysis
The Court relied on the precedent set in W.P.No.13543 of 2019 and W.A.No.356 of 2023, where it was held that the cut-off date prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.98 cannot bar the claims of displaced persons whose lands were acquired prior to the scheme's implementation. The Division Bench's judgment in W.A.No.356 of 2023 was particularly instructive:
"12. Reasons & Findings: (i) In the present case, the writ petitioners are similarly situated persons to the applicants in O.A.No.10637 of 2009 and as the applicants therein were provided job as per the order of the Tribunal wherein it is directed that irrespective of date of application or irrespective of limitation prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986, had been implemented after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Apex Court on 04.07.2011. As such, now the State cannot take stand that the claim of the writ petitioners herein is time barred. (ii) It is an admitted fact that prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986, the lands of the petitioners were acquired by the State. As such, the time prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986 to submit the applications for appointment from the eligible candidates is need not to be taken into consideration in the light of the orders of this Court and Apex Court as discussed supra. Thus, the action of the State Authorities in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners on the ground of time barred is untenable and unsustainable and liable to be dismissed."
The Court observed that the petitioner's lands were acquired under Award No.32/87, dated 31.07.1987, prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986. The impounding of water on 19.09.2005 led to the petitioner's displacement, making him eligible for employment benefits under the scheme. The Court held that the respondents' reliance on the cut-off date was misplaced, as the Memo No.480-LAR (2)87/2, dated 24.08.1987 had removed the one-year limitation period, and the petitioner's claim could not be barred on procedural grounds.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The Court set aside the impugned order dated 04.03.2020 and directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's case for appointment under the displaced persons category within four months from the date of receipt of the order. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Cut-off Dates Cannot Override Substantive Rights
- Displaced persons whose lands were acquired prior to the implementation of the employment scheme cannot be denied benefits based on cut-off dates
- Courts will scrutinize procedural limitations that defeat the purpose of welfare schemes, particularly when the acquisition predates the scheme
Precedential Value of Tribunal and High Court Orders
- The judgment reinforces the binding nature of tribunal orders (e.g., O.A.No.9807 of 2009) and High Court directions (e.g., W.P.No.13543 of 2019) in similar cases
- Authorities must comply with judicial directions without raising procedural objections like limitation periods
Practical Implications for Displaced Persons
- Displaced persons should cite this judgment to challenge rejection orders based on cut-off dates
- Legal practitioners can argue that procedural bars cannot override substantive eligibility, especially when the acquisition predates the scheme
- Authorities must re-examine pending claims of similarly situated displaced persons and consider them for employment benefits
