Chattisgarh High Court

Laxman Prasad vs National Thermal Power Corporation ... on 20 June, 2025

                                        1




Digitally
signed by                                                  2025:CGHC:26312
RAMESH
KUMAR VATTI                                                           NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                            WPS No. 5531 of 2017
1 - Sundarlal S/o Late Baijarauram Aged About 43 Years R/o Village
Lakhram, Post Lakhram, Police Station Ratanpur, Tahsil Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Rameshwari D/o Kholbahara, W/o Sundarlal Aged About 33 Years R/o
Village Khatola, Post Bargawan, Police Station Akaltara, Tahsil Akaltara,
District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh
                                                          --- Petitioners

                                     Versus

1 - National Thermal Power Corporation Limited Through Its Chairman-Cum-
Managing Director, Post Office- Ujwal Nagar, Seepat, Police Station Seepat,
Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 495555

2 - Manager, Human Resources Department, National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited, Post Office Ujwal Nagar, Seepat, Police Station Seepat,
Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 495555

3 - National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Through Its Chief Managing
Director, Scope Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi,
110003

4 - Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                --- Respondents

And

1 - Ram Kumar Kaiwartya S/o Pakla Kaiwartya, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Nirtu, Post Ghutku, Police Station Koni, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner Versus

1 - National Thermal Power Corporation Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Post Office Ujwal Nagar, Seepat, Police Station Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District Blaspur, Chhattisgarh 495555

2 - Manager, Human Resources Department National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Post Office Ujwal Nagar, Seepat, Police Station Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495555

3 - National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Through Its Chief Managing Director, Scope Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003

4 - Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents And

1 - Krishna Kumar S/o Kholbahara Ram, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Sipat, Post Janji, Police Station Sipat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - National Thermal Power Corporation Limited Through Its Chairman-Cum- Managing Director, Post Office Ujwal Nager, Seepat, Police Station Seepat, Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495555

2 - Manager, Human Resources Department National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, National Thermal Power Corporation, Post Office Ujwal Nagar, Seepat, Police Station Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495555

3 - National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, . Through Its Chief Managing Director, Scope Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Raod, New Delhi-110003

4 - Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents And

1 - Dayanidhi Kaiwartya S/o Teejram Kaiwartya Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Nirtu, Post Ghutku, Police Station Koni, Tahsil- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner Versus 1 - National Thermal Power Corporation Limited Through Its Chairman-Cum- Managing Director, Post Office Ujwal Nagar, Seepat, Police Station Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495555

2 - Manager, Human Resources Department National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Post Office Ujwal Nagar, Seepat, Police Station Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495555

3 - National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Through Its Chief Managing Director, Scope Complex, 7 Institutional Area, Lodhi Raod, New Delhi- 110003

4 - Collector, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents And

1 - Laxman Prasad S/o Kholbahara Ram Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Janji, Post Janji, Police Station Sipat, Tahsil Sipat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

2 - Manager, Human Resources Department National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Post Office Ujwal Nagar, Seepat Police Station Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495555

3 - National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Through Its Chief Managing Director, Scope Complex, 7 Institutional Area, Lodhi Road New Delhi 110003

4 - Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents And

1 - Rajendra Kumar Kaiwartya S/o Pakla Kaiwartya Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Nirtu, Post Ghutku, Police Station Koni, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Manager, Human Resources Department, National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Post Office- Ujwal Nagar, Seepat, Police Station Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 495555

3 - National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Through Its Chief Managing Director, Scope Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, 110003

4 - Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. Alok Bakshi, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Prafull Bharat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anoorup Panda, Advocate

For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

20/06/2025

1. The grievance of the petitioners is that their lands were acquired for

setting up a Power Plant at National Thermal Power Corporation (for

short 'NTPC'), Seepat, District Bilaspur. It is further pleaded that when

lands were acquired, the petitioners and other land oustees were

given an assurance that as per the Rehabilitation Policy of the State

Government, they would be entitled to employment in lieu of their

lands. It is further pleaded that respondents No. 1 to 3 have

established and commissioned their Plant, but they have not

considered the claims of the petitioners for providing employment.

2. Mr. Alok Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

argue that respondents No. 1 to 3 have placed reliance on the

Condition/Clause No. 7 of the Agreement entered into between the

petitioners and the Management, wherein it is stated that the

petitioners accepted the compensation and rehabilitation as a final

settlement and agreed that they would make no further claim for

employment with NTPC under the Rehabilitation Policy. Mr. Alok

Bakshi would further submit that the Policy of the NTPC would not

prevail and the Rehabilitation Policy of the State Government would be

binding upon them. He would further contend that though there is a

mention of the Rehabilitation Policy in the Agreement, but the same

has not been placed on record by respondents No. 1 to 3. He would

also submit that the petitioners are poor villagers and have been

defrauded by respondents No. 1 to 3. He would further argue that an

assurance was given by respondents No. 1 to 3 to provide

employment, but the same has not been fulfilled till date. He has

placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of

this Court in WPS No. 432 of 2011 on 23/07/2015 parties being Ku.

Rattho Bai & Anr. Vs. South Eastern Coalfield Limited Ors., where

it is held that the Rehabilitation Policy of the State Government has

statutory force and would prevail over any other policy made by the

Company or any other local institution.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Prafull Bharat, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 would oppose the submissions

made by Mr. Alok Bakshi. Mr. Prafull Bharat, learned Senior Counsel

would submit that full and final compensation was paid to the land

oustees by respondents No. 1 to 3. He would further submit that a

tripartite agreement was entered into between the parties, wherein a

decision was taken to prepare a priority list after taking into

consideration the area of land of the lands oustees. He would also

submit that it was also decided that the names of those land oustees,

whose area of acquired land is 01 acre or more would be considered

for the priority list. He would state that the area of the acquired lands

of the petitioners is less than 01 acre, therefore, their names do not

reflect in the priority list. It is also contended that the petitioners

knowing very well the conditions of the agreement, executed it in the

year 2001. He would further contend that the Rehabilitation Policy of

the year 2008 would not attract in the present case as the Agreement

was entered into in the year 2001, lands were acquired in the year

2000 and the sale deeds were executed by the petitioners in favour of

the NTPC. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab State Electricity

Board and Others Vs. Malkiat Singh, (2005) 9 SCC 22 wherein it is

held that the scheme giving appointment 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.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents available on the record with utmost circumspection.

5. In the matter of Ku. Rattho Bai (supra) it is held that any guidelines

which do not have any statutory flavour are merely advisory in nature.

They cannot have the force of a statute. They are subservient to the

legislative Act and the statutory rules. Relevant paragraph Nos. 7 and

8 are reproduced herein below:-

"(7) The policy issued by the SECL in the year 2002 makes such provisions, however, a reading of the Policy would indicate that the said policy does not have any statutory force, whereas, the Rehabilitation Policy issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh has been issued for and on behalf of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh. Since there is no legislation covering the said field, the Policy has statutory backing in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the Rehabilitation Policy issued by the State Government would prevail upon the Policy of the SECL.

(8) The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana vs. Mahender Singh and Others reported in (2007) 13 SCC 606 has held thus in para 39 :

"39. It is now well settled that any guidelines which do not have any statutory flavour are merely advisory in nature. They cannot have the force of a statute. They are subservient to the legislative Act and the statutory rules. (See Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 166, J.R. Raghupathy vs. State of A.P., (1988) 4 SCC 364 and Narendra

Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India, 1990 (Supp) SCC 440).

6. In the matter of Malkiat Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 held as under:-

7. In the light of what is stated above, it is clear that the respondent was not entitled to appointment. The High Court was not right in directing the appellant Board to appoint the respondent to the post of Homoeopathic Physician. During the course of arguments, we asked the learned counsel for the respondent whether the respondent is willing to join in any of the available vacancies even now. On instructions from the respondent, the learned counsel submitted that the respondent is only interested in getting the appointment to the post of Homoeopathic Physician and not any other post covered by the scheme.

8. In view of what is stated above and having regard to all aspects of the matter, we find that impugned order cannot be sustained. Hence, the appeal is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, it is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed. No costs.

7. Now coming to the facts of the present case, the lands of the

petitioners were acquired by the NTPC in the year 2000. The sale

deeds were executed by the petitioners in favour of the NTPC and full

consideration was paid. Condition No. 7/Clause-7 of the Agreement

dated 20.03.2001 entered into between land oustees and

Management reads as under:-

"7- ;g fd izFke i{k }kjk mijksDr iquokZl jkf'k izkIr djus ds Ik'pkr iquokZl dk;Z ;kstuk ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr izFke i{k ds iquokZl lacaf/kr lHkh nkoksa ij iw.kZ ,oa vfUre fuiVku ekuk tk,xk rnqijkUr izFke i{k dk vU; dksbZ nkok dkjiksjs'ku ij ekU; ugha gksxk A"

8. A bare reading of Clause-7 would make it clear that the matter of

compensation and employment were finally settled between the

parties and there was no occasion for the petitioners to claim

employment after 16 years without explaining the delay part.

9. Mr. Alok Bakshi argued that there was an assurance on the part of

respondents No. 1 to 3 to provide employment, but no document has

been placed on record to establish this submission.

10. It is not in dispute that the Rehabilitation Policy has a statutory force as

the same has been issued by the State, but at the same time, the

petitioners entered into an agreement with the NTPC and according to

Clause-7 of the Agreement, they waived their right to claim

employment against the acquisition of their lands.