Rohtash vs M.D. Hpgcl And Ors on 22 July, 2013

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rohtash vs M.D. Hpgcl And Ors on 22 July, 2013

Bench: M.M.S. Bedi

CWP 8716 of 2013                            1


      IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                   HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.


                                                CWP 8716 of 2013
                                                Date of decision: 22.7.2013
Rohtash

                                                           .. petitioner

                               vs
M.D. HPGCL and ors
                                                         ... respondent


Present     Mr. Ravinder Hooda, Advocate


M.M.S. BEDI,J.

Aggrieved by order dated 30.4.2012 (Annexure P-7), rejecting the claim of the petitioner for employment in view of the land acquired for setting up Thermal Plant at Panipat as per Policy of the Govt. dated 6.5.1985/7.4.1992, the petitioner has approached this court. Pursuant to the directions of this court in COCP 2367 of 2010 dated 23.1.2012, requiring the respondents to consider the claim of each of the petitioner separately after calling individual information, the Chief Engineer has passed the following order:-

" Now coming to the case of the petitioner, it is a matter of record that Shri Rohtas had never applied for employment for himself except through this petition. The petitioner has mentioned in the application dated 2006(Anexure P-9 attached with the writ petition) that he was minor at that time. There was no provision in the policy to keep reserve the post for providing employment for minor till the date of majority. In view of the fact that Shri Rohtas had not applied for providing employment on or before the cut off date 13.12.1991 and at this belated stage when the policy is no longer in vogue, the claim of the petitioner is not feasible of acceptance."

CWP 8716 of 2013 2

In view of the fact that the petitioner had not applied for employment and that there is no provision in the Policy to keep reserve the post for providing employment for minor till the date of majority, the Chief Engineer has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. Besides this, the compassionate appointment to the post of Meter Reader or Daily Wager for Matriculate/ under Matriculate, respectively, cannot be claimed as an enforceable right after an inordinate delay. Besides this, the petition deserves to be dismissed in view of the observations of this court in CWP No. 8670 of 2013, which reads as follows:-

" In view of no enforceable statutory legal right available to the petitioner to invoke the provisions of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. Besides this, this court is of the opinion that the appointment sought for is not a public appointment but was in the shape of additional bonus to the acquisition. The writ petition is dismissed. "

In view of the above circumstances, this petition is dismissed as there is neither any statutory enforceable right vested in the petitioner nor there has been any violation of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India.

July 22    ,2013                                    ( M.M.S. BEDI )
TSM                                                       JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court