P Suresh S/O Sharnappa vs Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1453 Kant

                                 1




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     KALABURAGI BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                             BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

       WRIT PETITION No.200132 OF 2014 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

P. Suresh
S/o Sharnappa
Age 29 years
R/o village Deosugur
Taluk and District: Raichur 584 101
                                                       ...Petitioner
(by Sri Sachin M. Mahajan, Advocate)

AND:

   1. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited
      through its Executive Director
      Raichur Thermal Power Station
      Shakti Nagar
      District: Raichur Pin 584 170

   2. The Deputy General Manager (HRD)
      Raichur Thermal Power Station
      Shakti Nagar
      District: Raichur Pin 584 170
                                                ... RESPONDENTS

(by Sri Shivakumar Kalloor, Advocate)

      This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of order or direction
                                      2




in the nature of certiorari and quash the endorsement at
Annexure-G insofar as application No.519; and etc.

      In this petition arguments being heard, judgment
reserved, coming on for "Pronouncement of Orders", this day,
the Court made the following:-

                              ORDER

Heard Sri Sachin M. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the land bearing

Survey No.452 measuring 3 acre 5 guntas was acquired for

establishing Raichur Thermal Power Station, as per the

Notification Annexure-A dated 15th May, 1979. It is further

stated in the memorandum of writ petition that, father of the

petitioner-Sharanappa S/o Narasappa is the owner of the land in

question. It is further stated that, respondent-authorities have

formulated scheme for the purpose of providing employment to

the land losers as per Special Scheme (Training and Absorption)

for Land losers of KPCL Projects. Since the petitioner's father-

Sharanappa was appointed in the respondent-Corporation on the

basis of his name being enrolled in the District Employment

Exchange and not as a land loser and as such, the case of the

petitioner has to be considered in terms of the aforementioned

Scheme. However, on the receipt of the representation made by

the petitioner, respondent-authorities have issued endorsement

Annexure-G, declining to appoint the petitioner. Being aggrieved

by the same, the petitioner has presented this Writ Petition.

3. Shri Sachin M. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner contended that it is imperative on the

respondent-Corporation to provide appointment to the family

members of the land-losers. However, the respondent-

Corporation issued endorsement stating that father of the

petitioner is working as Junior Assistant Grade-I in the

Corporation which is not a ground to reject the representation of

the petitioner.

4. Per contra, Shri Shivakumar Kalloor, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent-Corporation argued that the claim

of the petitioner cannot be considered since the employment to

family members of land-losers have to be made as per the

Scheme provided at Annexure-R3 to the statement of objections.

Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. In the light of the submission made by the learned

counsel for the parties, I have carefully considered the writ

papers, particularly the provision providing for selection process.

Clause 4.2 of the Special Scheme (Training and Absorption) for

Land losers of KPCL Projects reads as under:

"Only one person in a family whose land and/or house was acquired/submerged will be considered. The status of family as on the date of acquisition of land or house as the case may be, will be considered for this purpose. The members of land loser family to be considered are those specified in the relevant rules of the Corporation."

6. Perusal of the aforementioned clause would make it

clear that the respondent-Corporation is bound to provide

employment to one person in the family in lieu of acquisition of

the land/house for the purpose of Project. In this regard, I have

carefully considered the reason assigned by the respondent-

Corporation to reject the claim of the petitioner as per Annexure-

G which connotes that the father of the petitioner has been

working in the said Corporation and therefore, the Corporation

rejected the claim. The said reason assigned by the respondent-

Corporation is not in consonance with Clause 4.2 of the Scheme

set out at Annexure-R3. It is not in dispute that the father of

the petitioner was appointed in the respondent-Corporation

through District Employment Exchange and not under the

Scheme so formulated by the respondent-Corporation. In that

view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner. In the result, I pass the

following:

ORDER

1. Writ petition is allowed;

      2. Annexure-G      passed       by    the    respondent-
         Corporation is set aside;

3. Writ of mandamus is issued to the Respondent- Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment under the Scheme, in the light of the observation made above and in accordance with law within a outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

lnn