IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1441 of 2001 Between: Smt. Manubothula Pochu and others. ...Appellants And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare (F-I) Department, Hyderabad and others. ...Respondents Counsel for the appellants : Sri J. Ashvini Kumar Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : None Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 : Ms. V. Uma Devi The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT: (per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.) This appeal has been filed against order dated 12th April, 2001 passed in Writ Petition No.24772 of 2000, whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition. We have heard Sri J. Ashvini Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. V. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5. The dispute pertains to non-implementation of G.O.Ms.No.103, Social Welfare (FI) Department, dated 29.7.1997, whereby the Government framed a scheme for rehabilitation of the members of Tribal families whose lands were acquired for de-pillaring operations. It has been provided in the said G.O. that the acquisition of Ac.95.14 gts. of land in Mandamarri Village, Adilabad District for the purpose of mining of coal was subject to providing employment to the affected families besides payment of compensation in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction to respondent Nos.4 and 5 to provide suitable employment to the 14 Tribal families subject to their eligibility and as and when vacancies arise. The writ petitioners filed the present appeal not being satisfied with the direction given by the learned Single Judge. In this appeal, the appellants sought for enforcement of G.O.Ms.No.103, dated 29.7.1997 by providing employment to one member from each of the displaced families. After taking time for instructions, Ms. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted that so far, the above- mentioned G.O. has not been given effect to and that respondent Nos.4 and 5 expressed their willingness to implement the G.O. by appointing one person each from the displaced families subject to their eligibility in the immediately next available vacancies. The learned counsel for the appellants says that the appellants will be satisfied with this assurance given by the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5. In view of the above, the writ appeal is disposed of by placing on record the above-mentioned submission of the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5. No order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 12th October, 2009 C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. ARS