Punjab-Haryana High Court
Subhash & Ors vs Md Hpgcl & Ors on 22 April, 2013
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
LPA NO.304 of 2013 -1-
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
CM-815-LPA-2013 and
LPA NO.304 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 22.04.2013
****
Subhash & Ors. . . . . Appellants
VS.
MD HPGCL & Ors. . . . . Respondents
****
CORAM : HON'BLE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
****
Present: Mr. Ravinder Hooda, Advocate for the appellants
*****
SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)
CM-815-LPA-2013 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 308 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned CM stands disposed of.
LPA NO.304 of 2013 (1). Since LPA Nos.304 to 306 & 316 of 2013 are directed against the order dated 04.01.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, the same are being disposed of together, however, the facts are extracted from LPA No.304 of 2013.
(2). This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 04.01.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the LPA NO.304 of 2013 -2- appellant's writ petition wherein a direction was sought to the respondent-Corporation to appoint them on compassionate grounds as per the policy decision dated 06.05.1985 in lieu of acquisition of the land of the appellants for setting up the Thermal Power Plant at Panipat.
(3). The appellants are residents of village Khukhrana, District Panipat. Lands of their families, as per the details given in para 6 of the writ petition, were acquired by the State of Haryana under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the public purpose of setting up Thermal Power Plant at Panipat. It appears that the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board (now represented by the respondent- Corporation) took a policy decision dated 06.05.1985 to give employment to one of the suitable and eligible family member of those whose source of livelihood was affected as a result of the acquisition. The appellants were minors at the time of acquisition of lands of their families and as per the averments made in para No.7 of the writ petition, their family members like father or elder brothers applied for employment. It further appears that the applications moved by family members of the appellants remained pending at different level and meanwhile, the appellants attained majority. Thereafter, the appellants themselves applied for employment under the subject policy before the cut-off date of 13.12.1991 prescribed to submit such applications. Since the appellants were not offered employment they approached this Court through different writ petitions filed in the year LPA NO.304 of 2013 -3- 2010 or 2011, details whereof are mentioned in para 13 of the writ petition. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, their claims were rejected which prompted them to file fresh writ petitions in the year 2012. The learned Single Judge has dismissed these writ petitions, inter alia, observing as follows:-
"3. Any scheme of compassionate appointment is a deviation from Article 14 of the Constitution and it is admissible under two situations only, as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court through various decisions and other High Courts. One, to relieve a family from distress when the head of the family dies in harness; two, when the property is acquired and when the compensation given is not as per the market valuation and as a measure of rehabilitation of the family, which loses the sources of livelihood, to provide for employment. The latter issue was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Malkiat Singh 2005(9) SCC 222 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also laid down that the matters of policy will have to be strictly construed and if a person is not entitled to reckoning in terms of the policy at the time when the policy is in force, then the question of accommodating a prayer for appointment cannot come at any time. In this case, LPA NO.304 of 2013 -4- the acquisition of the property has been made as much before 1985 and the scheme itself provides for consideration of applications only before 31.12.1991.
4. The writ petitions seeking for appointment in the year 2012 after rejection of the requests which were made through the orders that set out valid grounds are not susceptible for interference before this Court. It is irrelevant that some of the petitioners had filed writ petitions earlier in the year 1992 and they were permitted to make fresh representations to authorities. I do not find any laches on the part of the petitioners, but I find that some of the petitioners merited favourable consideration under the terms of policy."
(4). Still aggrieved the appellants have preferred these appeals. (5). We have heard learned counsel for the appellants at some length and gone through the record. It is not in dispute that the land of the appellants' families were acquired way back in the year 1984 when they were minors. The laudable object behind issuance of the policy dated 06.05.1985 appears to be to provide immediate source of sustenance to the families who were dependent upon agricultural activities and whose land was acquired to set up the Thermal Power Plant. In our considered view, the mitigating circumstances prompting the welfare State to take such like policy decision of compassionate LPA NO.304 of 2013 -5- employment can no longer survive and would become obsolete in due course of time if the family has to sustain itself with the help of such employment. It would be unjustified to say that the family was still dependent upon the employment for its survival. The facts on record reveal that father of one of the appellants applied for his own employment and suddenly after five years or so, he withdrew his application and asked his son to apply. It would simply suggest that the family did not need employment as an immediate source of survival. The fact that family members of the appellants or they themselves after attaining the age of majority kept on waiting and allowed the grass to grow under their feet, is sufficient enough to dissuade this Court to issue the desired directions. (6). For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed.
(SURYA KANT)
Judge
22.04
22.04.2013
.04.2013 (R.P. NAGRATH)
vishal shonkar
Judge