Hakam Singh @ Pawan Kumar vs Shri Subodh Chand Agrawal and others

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—In this petition, prayer has been made before this Court to initiate the contempt proceedings against the respondents for not complying with the directions issued by this Court in CWP No. 16187 of 2011 decided on 01th September, 2011. As per the averments made, land of the petitioner was acquired for construction of Ranjit Sagar Dam. By filing the writ petition, as stated above, a direction was sought to be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for providing him employment as per the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme dated 8th November, 1993.

CWP No. 16187 of 2011 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 1.9.2011, which reads thus:

The petitioners seeks a mandamus to direct the respondent-authorities to provide him employment as per the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme dated 08.11.1993 (Annexure P-1).

The above stated relief has been sought on the basis of the judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No. 787 of 2008 (Dharam Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others) decided on 26.11.2009 which has been upheld by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 1412 of 2009 (State of Punjab and others versus Dharam Singh and others), decided on 21.01.2010 as well as the Hon''ble Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP on 28.2.2011.

In these circumstances, when the matter stands settled up to the highest Court, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to consider the claim of the petitioner for providing him employment under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme dated 08.11.1993, in the light of the above cited decisions. However, if the respondents find that the claim of the petitioner is distinguishable, they shall dispose of it by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.

It is also not in dispute that a bunch of 30 cases i.e. COCP No. 1435 of 2012 and other connected matters wherein the similar controversy was involved on similar facts were disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 31.7.2012.

The operative part of the said judgment reads thus:-

This Court refrains itself from taking any further action against the respondents at this stage, but the request made on behalf of the State of Punjab is wholly unjustified. In fact, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, as noticed above, this letter is nothing but an attempt on the part of the respondents to circumvent the orders passed by this Court. It may be noticed that in the meeting held on 27th July, 2012, a modification has been done in the decision taken in an earlier meeting held on 17th April, 2012 with regard to the employment to the dam oustees prior to the existence of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme dated 8th November, 1993 and this has nothing to do with the implementation of the orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions as well as the contempt petitions arising out of the aforesaid orders. Moreover, nothing has been assured with regard to the compliance of the orders passed by this Court.

In this view of the matter and keeping in view the earlier orders passed by this Court, as noticed above, the respondents are directed to pass an appropriate order considering the case of the petitioners in terms of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme dated 8th November, 1993 for such oustees of the Ranjit Sagar Dam in compliance of the directions given by this Court in various writ petitions and dispose of the claim of the petitioners, within one month from today. The respondents shall further communicate the order to be passed by them to the petitioners forthwith.

In case the aforesaid directions are not complied with, the petitioners shall be at liberty to revive these contempt petitions.

Disposed of.

Notice of motion.

At the asking of the Court, Sh. M.C. Berry, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice.

The learned State counsel could not dispute the fact that the instant petition is covered by the aforesaid judgment dated 31.7.2012 passed in COCP No. 1435 of 2012. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the instant petition is disposed of in the same terms as COCP No. 1435 of 2012 and other connected cases decided on 31.7.2012.