Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Singh & Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board & ... on 27 November, 2013
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
CWP No.1001 of 1995 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.1001 of 1995
Date of decision:27.11.2013
Balwinder Singh & others ....Petitioners
Versus
Haryana State Electricity Board & another ......Respondents
CWP No.9185 of 1995
Date of decision:27.11.2013
Shri Niwas ....Petitioner
Versus
Haryana State Electricity Board & another ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr.Advocate
with Mr.Tejpal Dhull, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Mr.Mohnish Sharma, Advocate
and Mr.Pardeep S.Poonia, Advocate, for the respondents.
****
G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral)
1. This order will dispose of CWP Nos.1001 and 9185 of 1995, involving common questions of law. To dictate orders, facts have been taken from CWP No.1001 of 1995 titled Balwinder Singh & others Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board & another.
2. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.11.1994 (Annexure P6) whereby the claim of the petitioners for consideration for employment on account of acquiring agricultural land by the Haryana State Electricity Board (for short, the 'Board'), for Thermal Power Project, Panipat, was rejected since the applications had been received after the cut-off date which was 13.12.1991.
Sailesh Ranjan2013.12.03 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.1001 of 1995 -2-
3. The case of the petitioners is that 13 kanals 1 marla of land of petitioner No.1 was acquired on 16.01.1991; whereas 2 kanals 11 marlas of land of petitioner No.2 and 3 marlas of land of petitioner No.3 were acquired. The Board in a meeting held on 26.02.1992, had taken a decision that the request for employment of the landowners of the dependent will be considered for employment in which the cut-off date was fixed as 13.12.1991. The petitioners had applied in pursuance of the said decision. However, since their case had not been considered, they filed CWP No.10706 of 1994 in this Court and a direction was issued on 11.08.1994 that the petitioners' case would be considered and decided within a period of 3 months. In pursuance of the said directions, their case had been rejected on the ground that the applications had been received after the cut-off date, i.e., 13.12.1991.
4. Accordingly, the arguments raised by the Learned Senior Counsel is that the cut-off date was prior in time i.e. on 13.12.1991 and therefore, there was no question of the petitioners applying in pursuance of the decision of the Board taken on 26.02.1992. The petitioners never got a chance to apply and their case was rejected vide impugned order on the ground that it was after the cut-off date.
5. Counsel for the respondent-Board, on the other hand, submitted that the earlier policy has already been withdrawn vide instructions dated 01.03.1995 (Annexure R1). It is also submitted that in case of petitioner No.1, only 13 kanals 1 marla of land out of 39 kanals 19 marla of land was acquired whereas in the case of petitioner No.2, 2 kanals 11 marlas of land was acquired out of 65 kanals 11 marlas of land and in the case of petitioner No.3, only 3 marlas of land out of total 71 kanals 14 marlas of land was acquired. Accordingly, it was submitted that initially, the policy was floated on 06.05.1985 wherein employment, on compassionate grounds, was to be given to one member of the Sailesh Ranjan family whose land had been acquired as their means of livelihood had been taken 2013.12.03 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.1001 of 1995 -3- away. Relevant portion of the policy dated 06.05.1985 is reproduced as under:
"The proposal to provide employment to dependents of land owners whose land has been acquired by the HSEB has been under consideration for some time past. It has now been decided to provide employment to the dependents of owners of land whose land has been acquired for the Thermal/Hydel Projects. It has further been decided that the Chief Engineers concerned should examine each case on merits and in case it is felt that by acquisition of land the means of livelihood have been taken away, only then the employment be given to one member of the family on compassionate grounds."
6. It is, thus, apparent that in the present case, the petitioners' case was considered and it was also noticed as to how much land they owned and how much the Board had acquired and it cannot be said that the means of their livelihood was taken away as a substantial amount of land still continued in possession of the landowners. The purpose of the policy was to ameliorate the difficulty faced by the dependants of the landowners, being deprived of their agricultural land. Once substantial amount of land continued to be in the possession of the landowners, they were not entitled for the benefit of the policy. The Apex Court in Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Malkiat Singh 2005 (9) SCC 22 in a similar situation, wherein the Board had formulated a policy of appointment for the persons whose land was acquired, held that the scheme to give appointment is only a matter of concession and the petitioners cannot claim it as a matter of right especially when they did not fulfil the necessary requirements. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
"6. It is not disputed that neither homeopathic dispensary at Lehra Mohabbat power station nor a post of Homeopathic Physician was available on 18.7.1994. The decision to set up a homeopathic dispensary at Lehra Mohabbat and to create a post of Homeopathic Physician in the dispensary was taken only on 1.7.1998 long after the policy decision dated 18.7.1994 and Sailesh Ranjan subsequent to the change in the policy dated 15.5.1998 and 2013.12.03 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.1001 of 1995 -4- 2.6.1998. This being the position, the question of the respondent seeking for appointment to the said post pursuant to policy decision of 18.7.1994 itself did not arise. At any rate, there could be no vested right in him to claim the appointment to the said post. The High Court also committed an error in taking a view that the policy decision of 2.6.1998 could not have retrospective application to the disadvantage of the respondent. There is no question of applying the policy retrospectively. On 17.9.1998 when the names of suitable candidates were sought from the employment exchange pursuant to the decision of the Board dated 1.7.1998, it could not be said that the right of the respondent was taken away when he did not have any such vested right to get an appointment to Class- II post of Homeopathic Physician. It may also be added that the respondent was not eligible to claim appointment on priority basis having regard to the changed policy from 2.6.1998 inasmuch as the land acquired from him was less than 2 acres and he was also over-aged as on 17.9.1998. The revised policy made the position clear that there could be no relaxation in regard to qualification and the age limit. Further the scheme was devised on 18.7.1994 and subsequently it was revised only as a concession to give a helping hand as far as possible to rehabilitate the displaced families whose lands were acquired. The respondent has got compensation for his land which was acquired. The scheme giving appointment on priority basis was only in the nature of concession to eligible candidates which the respondent could not claim as a matter of right having taken compensation amount for his land which was acquired, more so when he did not fulfill the necessary requirements under the revised scheme. The High Court in the impugned order has observed that "Obviously, if the effort of the respondent is to deny to the petitioner the job that he seeks in the present case on the ground that he is overage, action of the respondents cannot but be termed as discriminatory." This observation is not based on proper foundation or facts. It is not a case where any mala fide is alleged against the appellant or its officers. There is nothing to show that anybody was bent upon denying the appointment to the respondent."
7. The argument of Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the decision was taken on 26.02.1992 and the cut-off date was fixed prior to that is Sailesh Ranjan without any basis since the policy dated 06.05.1985 was initially withdrawn on 2013.12.03 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.1001 of 1995 -5- 11.01.1988 and it was thereafter that a decision was taken on 26.02.1992 that earlier applications which have been received by 13.12.1991 were only to be considered. Thus, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners that they could not apply as the policy was already in force prior to the last date of submission of the applications, i.e., 13.12.1992. The policy was introduced on 06.05.1985 and having been withdrawn on 11.01.1988 and then re-introduced. Only the cut-off date of 13.12.1991 was fixed, subsequently, i.e., on 26.02.1992. It is also a matter on record that now the policy has been withdrawn vide instructions dated 01.03.1995. In such circumstances, no benefit can be given to the petitioners as they are not entitled for the employment as all of their land was not acquired and their means of livelihood was not taken away. To be fair to Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, he has also relied upon a decision of this Court in CWP No.3159 of 1993 titled Rameshwar & another Vs. H.S.E.B. & others decided on 04.01.1995 and modified on 19.05.1995 wherein a direction was given for consideration of the appointment. Counsel for respondents, however, submits that thereafter, the case of Rameshwar was rejected on 28.08.1995 on the ground that out of 229 kanlas 15 marlas of land, only 19 kanals 5 marlas of land was acquired. The said decision was challenged by filing CWP No.14749 of 1996 which was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court on 20.09.1996 and further upheld in S.L.P.(Civil) No.1790 of 1999 on 06.08.1999. The facts of the present case are also similar to that case.
8. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are dismissed being devoid of any merit.
27.11.2013 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA)
sailesh JUDGE
Sailesh Ranjan
2013.12.03 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document