Judgment :- In all these writ petitions the relief being identical, at the joint request of either side, these writ petitions were consolidated and taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Ms.V.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.Karthick, learned counsel appearing for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co., for respondents 2 to 5. 3. The relief prayed for in these batch of writ petitions as well as the facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions are identical. It is sufficient to refer to the facts in one of the writ petitions. The petitioners have prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide suitable employment in the LPG Bottling Unit, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., located at Athipattu, Chennai-120 to the petitioners' sons/wards or daughter under land affected category. There is no dispute that the writ petitioners were the land owners, whose lands have been acquired for the purpose of Indian Oil Corporation LPG Bottling Unit locate at Athipattu as seen from Section 4(1) Notification and Section 6 Declaration. There is no dispute that the bottling Unit has been located by respondents 2 to 4 and it is operational. The petitioners who are either the land owners or the heirs or dependents have come forward with these batch of writ petitions seeking for a mandamus as according to them persons who have been displaced by the land acquisition proceedings for the project should be rehabilitated by giving employment. The petitioners rely upon the notification issued by the State Government namely G.O.Ms.No.656, Labour and Employment dated 29.6.1978 and connected G.Os. According to the Government Orders, the Public Sector Undertakings may recruit without reference to the Employment Exchanges at least one member of the family, which is displaced on account of acquisition of land for projects of such public sector undertakings etc., provided that the acquired land was the only or major source of sustenance for that family displaced by the acquisition. 4. The expression "displaced family" has been defined as the family who was the owner of the land at the time of acquisition or who was cultivating the land as varamdars. 4. The expression "displaced family" has been defined as the family who was the owner of the land at the time of acquisition or who was cultivating the land as varamdars. The G.O further directs that all Public Sector Undertakings shall themselves ascertain and decide whether land was major source or sustenance of family displaced by the acquisition of the land without insisting for production of any certificate from the Revenue authorities before recruitment is made. As among displaced persons, cultivating owners are given preference as against cultivating tenants or varamdars and second priority should be given to the absentee landlords. Placing reliance upon the Government Orders the present batch of writ petitions have been filed seeking for mandamus directing the respondents to engage the family members of the land givers as they are without any employment and their only source of livelihood, namely the lands, have been deprived by the acquisition. 5. The respondents 2 to 4 contend that the G.O issued by the State Government has no application in respect of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., which is an Undertaking of the Central Government and therefore the petitioners cannot enforce the terms of the G.O against I.O.C. The respondents further contend that they have a number of Units and there were certain settlements between the respondent and other employees in those units at various places and in terms of that workers have to be identified and accommodated in the new Unit at Athipattu. 6. According to the respondents recruitments were was made on the basis of certain redeployment of surplus workmen from other centers or units and therefore the petitioners are not entitled to any relief as prayed for. Mr.Karthick, learned counsel relied upon a settlement entered under section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 29.8.1989, 4.1.2000 and a circular of the Corporation directing redeployment of workers. While stressing that in terms of the settlement, redeployment has to be effected and therefore the respondents 2,3 and 4 cannot be compelled to engage persons from the family members whose lands have been acquired for the purpose of commissioning LPG Bottling Unit at Athipattu. 7. There is no dispute that the lands were acquired for the purpose of IOC LPG Bottling Unit at Athipattu and the writ petitioners are the owners and they have been displaced by the acquisition. 7. There is no dispute that the lands were acquired for the purpose of IOC LPG Bottling Unit at Athipattu and the writ petitioners are the owners and they have been displaced by the acquisition. There is no dispute that the petitioners were solely dependent on the lands which lands have been acquired and they have no other source of income. Therefore normally either the petitioners or a member of their family in terms of the directions issued by the State government has to be engaged by the Public Sector Undertaking and the later settlement relied upon by the respondents 2, 3 and 4 cannot be a ground to deny the relief to the writ petitioners. The G.O has been issued earlier in point of time and after the acquisition, the Bottling Unit has been set up. Normally the respondents 2 3 and 4 should have employed the members of the families whose lands have been acquired. But, bypassing the same, the respondents having redeployed workers from other units seek to defeat the claim of displaced persons. Such redeployment has been effected for obvious reasons and ignoring the rights of the unfortunate families who are displaced by land acquisition. This is a case where the respondents 2,3 and 4, though a Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India have no mind to rehabilitate those hapless family members thrown out of cultivation consequent to the acquisition of lands owned by them for the very same Indian Oil Corporation LPG Bottling Unit. 8. One of the main contention advanced by Mr.Karthick, learned counsel for the respondents being that the directions issued by the State Government relied upon by the petitioners will not cover the said Public Sector Undertakings of the Central Government. Earlier the Central Government has concedingly issued instructions with respect to the Public Sector Undertakings of the Central Government and thereafter only the State Governments as per the directions of the Central Government adopted the same policy in respect of the said Undertakings in the States for providing employment to the persons displaced by the land acquisition as a measure of rehabilitation. The contention of Mr.Karthick that the G.O issued by the State Government will not cover the IOC Bottling Unit at Athipattu cannot be sustained at all. The acquisition is by the State Government on the request made by IOC, a Public Sector Undertaking. The contention of Mr.Karthick that the G.O issued by the State Government will not cover the IOC Bottling Unit at Athipattu cannot be sustained at all. The acquisition is by the State Government on the request made by IOC, a Public Sector Undertaking. The State Government would not have resorted for acquisition of lands by exercising powers of eminent domain, but for the fact IOC is a Public Sector Undertaking of the Central Government. Therefore they cannot avoid their obligation by raising hyper technical objections and contend that the G.Os issued by the State Government has no application, while forgetting that the acquisition was undertaken by the State Government for the exclusive benefit of I.O.C. 9. The learned Additional Government Pleader points out that there are earlier Central Government orders and only following that the State Government has issued G.Os. It is also admitted that in respect of Neyveli Lignite Corporation, identical directions were issued by the State Government which acquired the lands for provision of employment to the displaced families. So also in respect of INS Rajali, Naval Air Station, Arakkonam. It is admitted that identical G.Os have been issued for various projects for which lands were acquired by the State Government for Public Sector Undertakings both State and Central. In respect of BHEL also a direction has been issued by a Division Bench of this Court by applying the same Government Orders and the contention of Mr.Karthick, learned counsel deserves to be rejected. 10. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners relied upon the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Banwasi Seva Ashram Vs. State of U.P, reported in 1992 (2) SCC 202 , Calcutta Port Trust Vs. Deba Prosad Bag, reported in 1994 Supp.(2) SCC 101 as well as a Division Bench judgement of this court in W.A.No.1394 of 1995 and an unreported order in W.P.No.19835 of 1994 etc., besides a judgment rendered by this court in Dharanipathy Lakshmi Devi Vs. Sect to Govt., of Tamil Nadu and 3 others reported in 1997 WLR 498 as well as a later pronouncement of P.SATHASIVAM,J., in W.P.No.3490 of 1999 etc., batch decided on 12.10.1999. P.SATHASIVAM,J., had occasion to issue directions in respect of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., where the lands have been acquired for the LPG Bottling Unit, SIPCOT Industrial Complex. Sect to Govt., of Tamil Nadu and 3 others reported in 1997 WLR 498 as well as a later pronouncement of P.SATHASIVAM,J., in W.P.No.3490 of 1999 etc., batch decided on 12.10.1999. P.SATHASIVAM,J., had occasion to issue directions in respect of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., where the lands have been acquired for the LPG Bottling Unit, SIPCOT Industrial Complex. The directions issued by P.SATHASIVAM,J., in the said batch in respect of HPCL, SIPCOT Industrial Complex in Gummidipoondi has reached finality. When directions have been issued in respect of HPCL, it is rather strange for Mr.Kathick to contend that the G.O has no application in respect of IOC LPG Bottling Unit located at Athipattu. HPCL is also a Government of India Undertaking. So also the IOC. What applies to HPCL also squarely applies to IOC and the pronouncement of P.SATHASIVAM,J., squarely applies to the case on hand. 11. In Dharanipathy Lakshmi Devi Vs. Sect to Govt., of Tamil Nadu and 3 others reported in 1997 WLR 498 this court had occasion to consider an identical question in respect of acquisition of lands for INS Rajali Naval Air Station, Arakkonam and after following the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Port Trust case (1994 Supp.(2) SCC 101 as well as Banwasi Seva Ashram case ( 1992 (2) SCC 202 ) and the Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.1394 of 1995 (M.Mani and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu) and order of R.Jayasimha Babu,J., in W.P.No.19835 of 1994, dated 8.9.1995, this court held thus:- "12. The learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court also issued further directions which has also been approved by the Apex Court and they read thus:- a) Until the cases of the petitioners are considered for employment in terms of this order, no appointment shall be made in the Class IV grade excepting those who are covered by the orders of this court. b) The petitioners shall give all particulars of their respective lands which were acquired for the Haldia Dock Complex of the Calcutta Port Trust within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner will also give their employment exchange card number etc., c) The petitioners shall also furnish the details of qualification and experience, if any, so that their cases may be considered for appointment in Class IV posts. The petitioner will also give their employment exchange card number etc., c) The petitioners shall also furnish the details of qualification and experience, if any, so that their cases may be considered for appointment in Class IV posts. d) The respondent shall, within four weeks after the particulars are furnished by the petitioners, scrutinise the cases through their own machinery and agency and not through the Screening Committee as specified in the Memorandum No.323 EMP dated 12th May 1996. After scrutiny if it appears that the lands (sic, shown in the) particulars, were acquired then the respondents shall consider the cases of the petitioners or appointment in Class IV grade irrespective of any other resolution, qualification or any other condition as a special case. e) If any petitioner on being considered is not found suitable for employment as a Class IV staff, then the reasons thereof shall be disclosed to such petitioner(s) and in that case such disqualified petitioner(s) will be at liberty to move before any appropriate forum. f) If upon consideration of the relevant facts as mentioned in the judgment, any of the petitioners are found eligible for employment, they shall be provided with employments Class IV grade as early as possible having regard to the available vacancies." The Apex Court also laid down that it is essential to constitute some persons or officer or authority to examine the correctness and bona fide of those who claim to be uprooted persons, that such screening would ensure elimination of bogus claims and directed that only after screening process, the appointment by rehabilitation will be implemented. 13. The Division Bench of this court also directed that person when vacancy/vacancies arising in BHEL, for which the appellants are eligible, they shall be considered fit first for those vacancies before considering theirs, which reads thus: "While maintaining the direction issued by the learned single Judge, we further make it clear that as and when the vacancy or vacancies arises in BHEL, for which the appellants are eligible, they shall be considered first for those vacancies before considering others and if the appellants are found eligible they are entitled to be appointed in such vacancies. Consequently, WMP.No.18003/95 is also disposed of No costs." 14. Consequently, WMP.No.18003/95 is also disposed of No costs." 14. In the present case, already a Government Order has been issued ensuring rehabilitation by way of employment of all the uprooted family by affording them one employment for each family. The fourth respondent in the counter Affidavit has set out above and provided employment to considerable number of persons whose families have been uprooted by acquisition. It is stated that 92% of the vacancies earmarked for the direct recruitment have been filled in by land losers only. Still there are number of persons who have not been rehabilitated by providing them employment by the fourth respondent. The State Government as well as the District Collector have not taken further steps to rehabilitate and they are not anxious to implement the Government Order in letter and spirit. It is true that there has been a payment of compensation for the acquisition of land, but that would not be sufficient, as the entire family has been deprived of their livelihood which is guaranteed under Art.21 of The Constitution. The right to be rehabilitated consequent to acquisition of large tract of the land has already been upheld by the Apex Court and the respondents have also admitted the corresponding responsibility to rehabilitate. The fourth respondent has given the particulars of persons, so far rehabilitated from among the displaced persons, but only suggest that all the persons displaced by the acquisition could not be accommodated. He fourth respondent had forgotten the fact this is a human problem which the Central Government and the State Government and the Project Authorities have assured to rehabilitate the families by providing at least one employment to one family either in the fourth respondent's project or in any other nearest Defence Establishment. As seen from Annexe Enclosure 2, till 28th October 1992 within a period of three years, only two candidates have been selected from land losers as sailors (MER and MMER) besides all the Chowkidars have been appointed from many land losers. As seen from Enclosure 4, 156 persons have been appointed from land losers as civilian Employees hailing from Puliamangalam, Cheyyur, Mosur, Perumchu and Author villages. These are the details of the employment made by the fourth respondent in the Naval Air Station to the land losers. As seen from Enclosure 4, 156 persons have been appointed from land losers as civilian Employees hailing from Puliamangalam, Cheyyur, Mosur, Perumchu and Author villages. These are the details of the employment made by the fourth respondent in the Naval Air Station to the land losers. The State Government also by its letters dated 16th April 1992 and 9tbh April 1992 had impressed upon the fourth respondent to give priority to the land losers in employment to civilian jobs and also to grant exemption of age limits. It is admitted that part from those who have been employed as set out in the fourth respondent's counter affidavit, there are number of families like the petitioner, who have not been provided with employment under the Scheme of one employment for one displaced family. Merely stating that 92% of the vacancies have been filed up from the land losers is not sufficient as it is the duty of the respondent to provide one job to one family and there is no escape for the respondents. The respondents are also estopped by conduct and the failure to provide at lest one employment to one displaced family either in the fourth respondent's establishment or in the surrounding Defence establishment is arbitrary denial in so far as the respondents are concerned. The State Government, District Collector and other Public Authorities have been keeping silent and merely forwarding the letters to the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent's mere acknowledgments of the letters are of little assistance to those who have been displaced by acquisition. Every effort should have been made by all the respondents to provide one employment to each family displaced by the acquisition. Not only the private lands of the persons or the individuals have been acquired, but vast tracks of the poramboke land where the villagers have together their cattle and also are utilising the said poramboke lands as their livelihood of grazing their cattle. The rehabilitation should be not only in letter, but also in spirit and factual. The fourth respondent should have taken all efforts to provide one employment to each family as there has been a commitment not only by the fourth respondent, but also by the Ministry of Defence as seen from the statement made before the Parliament by the Union Government." 12. The fourth respondent should have taken all efforts to provide one employment to each family as there has been a commitment not only by the fourth respondent, but also by the Ministry of Defence as seen from the statement made before the Parliament by the Union Government." 12. While following the said pronouncements as well as respectfully agreeing with the view taken by P.SATHASIVAM,J., in W.P.No.3490 of 1999 etc., batch dated 12.10.1999, this court holds that the respondents cannot avoid their obligation to rehabilitate the persons displaced by the land acquisition proceedings undertaken for the purpose of IOC Bottling Unit at Athipattu and they owe a duty to rehabilitate by appointing at least one member in each of the families who have been displaced by the acquisition and who were solely dependent on the lands which are acquired for the project of the respondents 2,3 and 4. But for the acquisition undertaken by the State Governments, the respondents could not have located the Bottling Unit at Athipattu. The acquisition has resulted in deprivation of livelihood of many of the writ petitioners and their family members identically placed. There is no doubt about this. The Central Government has also issued directions as seen from the State Government Notifications and the State Government has also issued directions as seen from the G.O., referred to above. That apart, the respondents being an authority under Art.12 and as has been laid by the Supreme Court in the two cases cited above as well as P.SATHASIVAM.J., is bound to provide employment at least to one member of the family who have been displaced by the land acquisition proceedings. 13. The writ petitions are allowed and the following directions are issued:- (a) No recruitment in Class III or Class IV or other lower class or menial post shall be made in the LPG Bottling Unit, Indian Oil Corporation, Athipattu or in the office of The Project Officer of the said Bottling Unit in respect of the said Classes of posts till one appointment to each of the displaced family is provided for. (b) The first respondent is directed to take out a list of total number of families as on date of handing over of the lands to IOC with reference to Revenue Records, verify the claims of such persons who have already been employed with reference to each family and furnish a list of families who have not been employed by the 4th respondent in the LPG Bottling Unit till date. (c) The petitioners or their family members who have been displaced by the acquisition and who have not been provided employment so far, shall submit their applications to the Revenue Divisional Officer, the first respondent herein or his successor, as the case may be, who shall forward their applications to the Project Officer, LPG Bottling Unit, Athipattu after verification and those applications shall be entered and maintained in a permanent register. On receipt of the list of displaced families who have not been provided with employment/appointment from the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Project Officer, Indian Oil Corporation, LPG Bottling Unit, Athipattu shall make every effort to provide them suitable employment depending upon their educational qualification or other eligibility prescribed for the posts. (d) The project Officer or other appointing authority, wherever required, shall relax the age and other qualifications of the members of such displaced families and appoint them. (e) When members of the displaced family with qualifications are available and if they possess the qualifications and eligibility they shall be appointed even to post higher than Class III or IV and they shall alone be appointed and no open market or redeployment could be resorted to except when eligible candidates are not available. (f) Before appointing third parties for any post, the respondents namely, Indian Oil Corporation or the Project Officer, IOC Bottling Unit shall exhaust the list of persons who were displaced by the acquisition and only after appointing them, the respondents will be entitled to resort to open market recruitment or if suitable candidates are not available among the members of the displaced families. If the IOC and the Project Officer are not in a position to employ those persons for want of vacancy, they are directed to keep the list of those persons and to consider them as and when vacancy arises in the future either in their Unit or at the Regional Office at Chennai. If the IOC and the Project Officer are not in a position to employ those persons for want of vacancy, they are directed to keep the list of those persons and to consider them as and when vacancy arises in the future either in their Unit or at the Regional Office at Chennai. (g) The writ petitioners or their family members, as the case may be, shall secure a Certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer that he or she is one of the members of the persons whose lands have been acquired in terms of the G.O.No.656 Labour and Employment dated 29.6.1978 and also ascertain that their names are incorporated in the Register maintained by respondents in this behalf. (h) The first respondent Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer shall certify that the lands of the petitioners or their families have been acquired for the project of IOC Bottling Unit, Athipattu. (i) The displaced persons shall secure a certificate from the Tahsildar to show that the applicant is the legal heir of the affected land owner. So also, a Certificate from the Tahsildar to show that except the lands acquired, the family is not having any other land for the livelihood and the family was solely depending upon the land. (j) These directions shall apply to all the persons identically placed whose lands have been acquired even if they hae not moved this court by filing a writ petition and who have parted their lands and so far have not been provided with employment, but subject to their fulfilling the conditions stipulated herein. (k) Without exhausting the list of persons as furnished by the RDO, the respondents-Indian Oil Corporation, or their subordinates shall not recruit or employ or appoint or even temporarily engage any one else. The respondents shall as a temporary measure, at the first instance, engage the displaced land owners or their family owners even as casuals if no permanent vacancies are available and as and when permanent vacancies arise they shall be accommodated in the permanent vacancies as per the list of seniority maintained by them. The respondents shall as a temporary measure, at the first instance, engage the displaced land owners or their family owners even as casuals if no permanent vacancies are available and as and when permanent vacancies arise they shall be accommodated in the permanent vacancies as per the list of seniority maintained by them. (l) It is made clear that no appointment of an outsider shall be made by the IOC and it is further made clear that the members of the family displaces by the acquisition proceedings need not register themselves with the Employment Exchange, nor it is required those displaced persons or their dependents are to be sponsored by the Employment Exchange in terms of the Government Notification or statutory provision. (m) The first respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer shall give wide publicity in Athipattu Village and other villages from where the lands were acquired and call upon the displaced persons or their family members to submit their applications within a period stipulated by him and thereafter process the applications and forward the same to the project officer after verification of the particulars and enter their names in the register maintained and among them priority shall be according to date of birth. (n) The persons who have been redeployed shall also be send back to their original units as and when vacancy arises in those Units or their services comes to an end as per the existing rules. These directions are issued as bypassing the claims of disabled persons, the respondents have entered into a settlement and brought in persons by way of redeployment of surplus staff from other units. In all other respects the petitioners or their wards or sons or persons claiming through them shall abide by the regulations or terms and conditions of appointment which is prevailing in the LPG Bottling Unit or in the Indian Oil Corporation, wherever they are appointed. 14. These Writ Petitions are allowed in the above terms to the extent indicated above and there will be a direction in the above terms and the respondents shall implement the above directions without deviation. In case of any difficulty, it is open to either parties to come before the Court and seek for clarification, if any. Consequently, connected WMPs are closed. The parties shall bear their respective costs.