Sh. Ramesh Chand vs State of H.P. and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—All these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment since the question involved is same and similar. Petitioners have prayed for the following relief:

(a) Writ of mandamus may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to provide employment under Resettlement and Rehabilitation Plan Scheme (Annexure P-2) to the petitioner who belongs to project affected family of Parbati Hydro Electric Project.

In effect, petitioners are seeking employment under the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme (Annexure P-2), being affected parties, as a result of construction of Parbati Hydro Electric Project.

In similar matters, wherein identical prayer was made, the Division Bench of this Court in terms of judgment dated 7.5.2013, passed in CWP No. 8100 of 2012, titled as Subhash Chand vs. State of H.P. & others as also judgment dated 20.3.2013, passed in CWP No. 8706 of 2012, titled as Dehar Singh vs. State of H.P. & others, has directed the National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. as also the State to consider the cases and decide in accordance with law.

In Subhas Chand (supra) Court has held as under:-

In this writ petition, following relief has been claimed:

a) Writ of mandamus may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to provide employment under Resettlement and Rehabilitation Plan Scheme (Annexure P-2) to the petitioner who belongs to project affected family of Parbati Hydro Electric Project.

On the previous date, following order came to be passed in this writ petition:

Time sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner to ascertain whether the writ petition could be disposed of in the light of the judgment, dated 31st December, 2012, passed in CWP No. 2529 of 2012, titled Kala Devi versus State of H.P. and others, and the judgment, dated 20.3.2013 of the Division Bench of this Court passed in CWP No. 8706 of 2012, titled Dehar Singh versus State of H.P. and others.

When this case was taken up for further consideration, learned counsel on both sides represented that the issue in this writ petition is identical to that in CWP No. 2529/2012, titled Smt. Kala Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 31.12.2012. Also that the issue involved in Writ Petition bearing No. 8706/2012, titled Dehar Singh Vs. State of H.P. and others, decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 20.3.2013 while placing reliance on the judgment rendered in Kala Devi''s case supra, was also identical in nature.

It is seen that the facts of this case are identical to that of the case of Kala Devi and Dehar Singh supra. In the judgment rendered in Kala Devi''s case, it is held as under:

It is seen that respondent No. 3-Corporation is alive to its commitment of providing employment to one of the eligible members of the families rendered landless on account of acquisition of land for construction of Parbati Hydro Electric Project, in District Kullu. No recruitment in the category of skilled/semiskilled/unskilled seems to have yet taken place. The respondent-Corporation has undertaken that as and when the recruitment in these categories is made, preference shall be given to the eligible members of such families, rendered landless. The representation submitted by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent is still pending consideration. In such a situation, there is no need to enter into the controversy in this writ petition on merits and this petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner and to respondent No. 3-Corporation to consider his claim for providing employment, in accordance with the Scheme, as it is legitimately expected from the said respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment as and when the recruitment is made in the near future.

The petitioner in this writ petition being similarly placed is also entitled to the grant of the same relief as granted in the case cited supra. We direct accordingly.

With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

The same shall also apply in the case of the present petitioners.

My specific attention is invited to the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, who has already recommended cases of the present petitioners to the General Manager, Parvati Hydro Electric Project. The said respondent, pursuant thereto, has taken action and invited eligible candidates for holding interviews with respect to various posts.

Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, learned Senior Counsel, submits that at the time when response was filed, process for filling up the vacancies stood initiated and now letters of appointment also stand issued to the selected candidates.

This action of the respondent is now under challenge by Sh. Gian Chand who has filed CWP No. 5697 of 2013, titled as Gian Chand vs. National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. and others, which is to be decided on its own merits. Under these circumstances, if there is any surviving grievance of the petitioners, it shall be open for them to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu (respondent No. 2) for consideration of their cases afresh, who shall take appropriate action, in accordance with law, within a period of three months thereafter. Also directions issued in Subhas Chand (supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply to the case of present petitioners.

With the aforesaid observations, present petitions stand disposed of, as also the pending application(s), if any.