IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 10730 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.J.KUMARAN, WORKER, THE SUGANDHAGIRI CARDAMOM PROJECT, WYNAD. 2. M.PENNUKUTTY, -DO- -DO- 3. MADHAVAN APPARI, -DO- -DO- 4. S.PADMAVATHY, -DO- -DO- 5. T.T.K.NARAYANAN, -DO- -DO- 6. M.M.NARAYANAN, -DO- -DO- 7. SUSEELA NARAYANAN, -DO- -DO- 8. R.KRISHNAN, -DO- -DO- 9. SARASWATHY, -DO- -DO- 10. M.M.VELLAN, -DO- -DO- 11. KALYANI VELLAN, -DO- -DO- 12. THANKA BALAN, -DO- -DO- 13. P.M.MALU, -DO- -DO- 14. M.R.GANGADHARAN, -DO- -DO- 15. SARADA VELAYUDHAN, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH WPC NO.10730/2008 RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SOUTH WYNAD GIRIJAN JOINT FARMING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.D.2301 KNOWN AS THE SUGANDHAGIRI CARDAMOM PROJECT, WYNAD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR (THE PROJECT OFFICER, INTEGRATED TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, KALPATTA, WYNAD). 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WYNAD (THE CHAIRMAN, SUGANDHAGIRI CARDAMOM PROJECT). MR.SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.10730/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF G.O.MS NO.79/89/A.D. DATED 17/04/89 ISSUED BY AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER. P2 : COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON DISTRIBUTION OF LAND IN SUGANDHAGIRI CARDAMOM PROJECT AND POOKOD DIARY PROJECT DATED NIL. P3 : COPY OF G.O.(MS) 309/2004/REVENUE DATED 12/10/2004. P4 : COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY R3 DATED 26/05/2003. P5 : COPY OF LETTER OF PRIVATE SECRETARY TO THE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR BACKWARD AND SCHEDULED WELFARE AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS DATED 02/02/2006. P6 : COPY OF ORDER OF R1 DATED 16/10/2006. P7 : COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 14/02/2005 ISSUED BY R4. P8 : COPY OF MINUTES DATED 21/03/2005 ISSUED BY R1 DATED 21/03/2005. P9 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 21/02/2006 OF SHRI.J.SUDHARARAN, I.A.S. P10 : COPY OF LETTER OF R4 DATED 27/02/2006. P11 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO SHRI.M.V.SREYASKUMAR, M.L.A. DATED 26/08/2006. P12 : COPY OF LETTER OF R2 DATED 07/03/2007. P13 : COPY OF LETTER OF R3 DATED 10/01/2008. P14 : COPY OF MINUTES OF MEETING DATED 24/06/2004 OF DISTRICT TRIBAL MISSION MEETING. P15 : COPY OF SCHEDULE SHOWING THE SERVICE DETAILS OF THE PETITIOENRS. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.10730 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T In 1976, Sugandhagiri Cardamom Project was established by the Government of Kerala under the Western Ghat Development Programme to rehabilitate 750 Scheduled Tribe freed bonded labourers in the Wayanad District. The administration of the project was under the Planning and Economic Affairs Department, which was later transferred to Agricultural Department and finally to the Scheduled Tribe Development Department. The petitioners herein are not members of the Scheduled Tribe community, but belong to Scheduled Caste community, who were engaged for work in the project on daily wages. 2. For various reasons, the project was dismantled by the Government in the year 2002 and at that stage, a Committee was appointed, which submitted Ext.P2 report. In this report, the Committee noticed the various liabilities of the project and finally, recommended that the extent of land to be distributed to each WP(C) No.10730/2008 -2- family may be decided by the Government subject to availability. It was further directed that the Scheduled Caste workers like the petitioners may also be considered on a par with Scheduled Tribes for distribution of land as these families have been brought right from the inception of the project. The Committee also recommended that only cultivable areas without dense tree growth and suitable for habitation need be distributed. 3. In pursuance to Ext.P2, the Government issued Ext.P3 order dated 12/10/2004, directing that the petitioners, who were working in the project, be given one acre of land each. A reading of Ext.P3 order shows that the decision was to allot five acres of land to the Tribals. The order also provided that for the workers of the project, a retrenchment Scheme will be implemented, and the workers will be paid a portion of the wages for the period till the work was stopped in the project. Accordingly, by Ext.P6 Government Order dated 16/10/2006, a Scheme for retrenchment and payment of compensation was framed by the Government. However, the Scheme covered only the employees and staff of the project and was not applicable to persons like the petitioners, who WP(C) No.10730/2008 -3- were working on daily wage basis. 4. However, taking into account the fact that one acre each of land, which was ordered to be allotted to the petitioners as per Ext.P3 order, was not habitable or cultivable, in Ext.P7 minutes of the meeting of the District Tribal Development Council, it was resolved inter alia to give an additional extent of ten cents each to the petitioners. This was followed by Ext.P8, the minutes of a meeting convened by the Minister, who also reiterated this position. Still later, by Ext.P9 dated 21/02/2006, the Chief of the TRDM addressed the Government to issue orders regarding the allotment of ten cents of land as resolved in Exts.P7 & P8. However, despite the commitments so given, the District Collector as per Ext.P10 letter dated 27/02/2006 addressed to the 3rd petitioner informed that the ten cents cannot be given. 5. On receipt of Ext.P10, representation was made to the Government, which was rejected by Ext.P12 dated 07/03/2007. Meanwhile, it would appear that the petitioners also stake a claim for the benefit of Voluntary Retirement Scheme, which also was turned down by Ext.P13 dated 10/01/2008. It is in these WP(C) No.10730/2008 -4- circumstances, this writ petition has been filed by some of the Scheduled Caste daily wage workers, who were engaged in the project site, praying for quashing Ext.P3 to the extent it limits the area allotted to one acre, and Exts.P10, P12 & P13. They also pray that a scheme should be framed providing for payment of retrenchment benefit, and that the wage arrears should also be paid. 6. As far as the claim made by the petitioners that they should be given ten cents of land each as resolved in Exts.P7 & P8 is concerned, according to the petitioners, the Government having resolved in Exts.P7 & P8 to allot ten cents of land for making their home steads, the District Collector could not have turned down their claims by Ext.P10. 7. The stand of the respondents as reflected in the counter affidavits filed by respondents 1 & 4 is that the one acre of land which was ordered to be allotted as per Ext.P3, should have been habitable and cultivable. It is stated that the initial assumption was that the land had neither of these qualities and therefore that it was decided to allot additional ten cents of land each. It is stated in WP(C) No.10730/2008 -5- paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent that on receipt of representation that the land was neither cultivable nor habitable, the Government constituted a Team headed by the District Collector to visit the land and furnish a report. Accordingly, the team visited the land and reported that the land was uninhabitable and recommended to allot ten more cents in suitable areas. It is stated that subsequently the tree growth in the land allotted to the petitioners had been cut and removed by the Forest authorities, and with that the land became habitable. Since the land was thus found to be habitable, the Government decided not to consider the demand for additional allotment of land. Thus, the stand of the respondents is that since the land allotted to the petitioners was cultivable and habitable, it was not necessary to allot additional ten cents as resolved in Exts.P7 & P8. 8. A reading of Ext.P3 itself shows that the land should have been both habitable and cultivable. Now that in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, the 1st respondent has sworn to an affidavit that once the tree growth has been removed, the land was found to be habitable and cultivable, this Court has no material to conclude WP(C) No.10730/2008 -6- otherwise. If that be so, the stand of the respondents that since the land meets the standards specified in Ext.P3, additional extend of land need not be allotted cannot be interfered with. 9. The surviving complaint of the petitioners in so far as the one acre of land is concerned, is that there is no drinking water facility. This allegation of the petitioners is answered in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent by stating that a scheme for providing drinking water and irrigation facilities is under consideration of TRDM. The learned counsel for the petitioners rightly point out that the right to be provided drinking water is a fundamental right available under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the respondents have the obligation to provide such minimum facilities. 10. In any case, now that the respondents themselves have stated that a Scheme for providing drinking water and irrigation facilities is under consideration, it is directed that respondents 1 & 4 shall take necessary action to provide drinking water and irrigation facilities as committed in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, and necessary steps in this regard shall be taken on a time bound basis. WP(C) No.10730/2008 -7- 11. The petitioners have a complaint that the retrenchment scheme formulated as per Ext.P6 is applicable only to employees and staff and not to them. As already noticed, the petitioners were only the daily wage employees and if so, they stand on a footing different from the regular employees of the project. Daily wage employees have entitlement only to be paid wages for the days engaged and if so, the petitioners cannot claim parity in treatment with regular employees and assert their claim for retrenchment compensation. Therefore, I am not persuaded to direct the extension of Ext.P6 to daily wage employees like the petitioners. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing that respondents 1 & 4 shall take time bound action for providing drinking water and irrigation facilities in the one acre of land each that is allotted to the petitioners following Ext.P3 Government Order referred to above. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg