Jawahar Lal Saket vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 13145 MP

                                                          1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                             ON THE 14 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 17895 of 2011

                          BETWEEN:-
                          JAWAHAR LAL SAKET S/O SHRI RAMSULARE SAKET,
                          AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, VILL. JAIPUR P.S. VINDHYA
                          NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SMT. SMITA ARORA VARMA - ADVOCATE )

                          AND
                          1.    UNION OF INDIA TH. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF
                                POWER SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN RAJI MARG
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    COMPANY SECRETARY & DIRECTOR, NTPC LTD.
                                NTPC    BHAWAN,    SCOPE    COMPLEX,    7
                                INSTITUTIONAL AREA, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    EXECUTIVE    DIRECTOR      NTPC     LTD.
                                VINDHAYACHAL PROJECT, SINGROULI (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          4.    GENERAL MANAGER NTPC LTD. VINDHAYA
                                NAGAR, SINGROULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI HARSHWARDHAN SINGH RAJPUT - ADVOCATE FOR UNION OF
                          INDIA)
                          (BY SHRI GREESHM JAIN - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS NOS.2
                          TO 4.

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                           ORDER

This petition is filed being aggrieved of order 24.08.2007 passed by Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 8/18/2023 10:22:18 AM

respondent no.4 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of employment.

Petitioner's contention is that land of the petitioner's father was acquired in the year 1980 in the first stage, his plot measuring 1817 sqft on which a house was constructed was acquired. Admittedly, compensation was paid but employment was not given in terms of the policy, Annexure P-7, dated 19.06.1980.

It is submitted that respondents were required to give employment. Petitioner's father had nominated the petitioner in the year 2006, as per affidavit Annexure P-9 dated 07.03.2006, but despite such nomination, petitioner was not given appointment and request was rejected vide order dated 24.08.2007.

It is submitted that this amounts to violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of Orissa High Court : Cuttack in WP(C) No.6520 of 2016, Arun Kumar Pal Vs. State of Odisha and Others decided on 20.7.2023 wherein Hon'ble Division Bench of Orissa High Court has held in para 16 that "if all these meaning of Article 21 will be taken into consideration within the scope of the 'life', deprivation thereof by not providing the petitioner the benefit, which is admissible to him under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement plan issued by the Government and accepted by the IOCL by the project authorities, the same violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Rather, the provisions contained in Clause-8.2 puts a mandate on the project authority to give preference to the nominated members of displaced families in employment in the Project or in its ancillary industries."

Similarly, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of NTPC Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The State of Odisha & Ors . decided on Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 8/18/2023 10:22:18 AM

20th July, 2020 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2784-2785 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.15475-15476 of 2019.

It is submitted that employment is one of the facets of rehabilitation policy that could not have been denied to the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner was waiting for his turn for publication of vacancies and his name being sponsored by the employment exchange and, therefore, petition could not be filed immediately in the year 2007 but was filed in the year 2011.

Shri Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner's land was acquired in the year 1980, at that time petitioner was only 4 years of age. The policy was to give immediate relief to the family of the land oustees. Policy is not an alternate source of employment. Admittedly, petitioner's father was called for an interview in the year 1990 and he was not found fit, however, he gained employment at NCL and continued to work at NCL, as is evident from Annexure P-14.

It is further submitted that after 1990, petitioner's father was not entitled to nominate his son in the year 2006 for grant of appointment in terms of the Relief and Rehabilitation Policy. Besides this petitioner's candidature was rejected on the ground that here was no facility for providing employment to unskilled labourers and petitioner was not having the desired skill set. It is submitted that petition has been filed after much delay.

Reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in case of State of J&K. & Ors. Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, AIR 2006 SC 2743 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of delay and laches in para 10 has held that "the learned single judge was right in dismissing the petition on the ground of delay and laches by holding that the applicant had not done

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 8/18/2023 10:22:18 AM

anything for a considerable period after March, 1996 when his claim was rejected even though he was informed about the decision and was very much aware of it. In that case application was moved in 1999."

Reliance is also placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Chhabbilal Vs. Western Coal Field Ltd. and Others passed on 26.10.2010 in W.A. No.829 of 2010 wherein relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Butu Prasad Kumbhar & Ors. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., & Ors. 1995 Supp (2) SCC 225, it is held that the land oustee like the appellant has neither any legal or fundamental right to claim appointment. In the absence of any legal right to claim appointment, in lieu of acquisition of land, no mandamus can be issued to respondents directing them to provide employment to the appellant. Thus, it is submitted that petition is liable to the dismissed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and gong through the record, it is not in dispute that petitioner's father and grandfather are the real land oustees, a plot measuring 1817 sqft was acquired from the petitioner's father Ramdulare Saket. At the time of land acquisition, petitioner was 4 years of age. Petitioner attained qualification in the year 1996-1997, claim of his father was rejected in the year 1990. His father did not nominate him immediately thereafter but nominated him for employment in the year 2006. Petitioner was already working at various places like D.C. Industrial Plant Services Pvt. Ltd. as is evident from Annexure P-3B dated 16.05.2008 and in Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd as is evident from Certificate Annexure P-3C. Thus, petitioner was in employment of one or the other entity.

Admittedly, petitioner's father was given a letter to appear for interview for grant of employment as contained in Annexure P-4 on 17.01.1990. Before Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 8/18/2023 10:22:18 AM

that petitioner's father gained employment in NCL.

Clause 4.1 of the said Policy, Annexure P-7, provides that the Personnel & Administration Department should then prepare a list of family members along with their age and qualification. The family for this purpose would include self spouse, dependent sons and unmarried dependent daughters if son is not there.

Clause 4.2 of the Policy provides that the list of family members must be authenticated by the State Government authorities.

Thereafter Clause 5.1 provides that head of the family should give in writing his nomination from among the above family members whom, he/she will like to get the benefit in the form of employment or shop allotment etc. by the Company. The nomination made by the head of the family, generally will not be allowed to be changed except in special circumstances. But in no case, he/she will be allowed to change the nomination more than once.

Clause 6.1 provides for preparation of a list of nominees and its forwarding to the employment exchange for necessary action by the project in the matter.

Clause 7.1 provides for the priority groups.

Clause(c) of the Clause 7.1 provides that because the limited number of vacancies and opportunities for shop allotment generally it will not be possible to accommodate categories (a) and (b) above. However, these lists can be kept and given such concessions subject to available vacancies/opportunities.

Clause(a) deals with land oustees in whose case less than one acre of land and /or house has been acquired.

Clause (b) deals with land oustees in whose case a compensation of

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 8/18/2023 10:22:18 AM

more than 50,000 to 1,00,000 depending on the value of land has been paid.

It is submitted in the present case, petitioner's case will fall in Clause (a) of 7.1 since land acquired was less than one acre petitioner will not fall in the priority list. Moreover, two plots were granted to the grandfather and father of the petitioner respectively as is mentioned in the reply furnished by the answering respondents. It is pointed out that plot No.3/317 was given to the father of the petitioner free of cost by the Municipal Corporation, Singrauli and plot No.3/293 to the grandfather of the petitioner on the same terms and conditions.

Thus, it is evident that employment being not an alternate source of recruitment after 26 years of land acquisition, option could not have been furnished by petitioner's father in the year 2006 asking for grant of employment to the petitioner specially when petitioner was already employed and looking to the fact that grant of employment is not a source of backdoor entry or alternate source of recruitment. Thus, when the aspect of delay is taken into

consideration in the light of the reply furnished by the petitioner to communication, Annexure P-14, then also there is no satisfactory reason of the delay. Thus, in terms of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sajad Ahmed Mir (supra) petitioner has no case.

Moreover, as held by Division Bench of this Court in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Butu Prasad Kumar (supra), it was petitioner's father who is a land oustee. He had a right to life and admittedly he was given appointment in NCL. Petitioner's contention is that appointment was for some other piece of land acquired from petitioner's father but employment is having only one facet i.e. to protect the right to life. Whether it was given for one piece of the land or for the other that is not important, right to life includes Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 8/18/2023 10:22:18 AM

right to livelihood as defined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, when there is no denying to the fact that after land was acquired from the father of the petitioner, a source of livelihood was provided by giving him appointment in NCL and he was already in employment of NCl as submitted by Ms. Smita Arora Varma prior to the land acquisition, then facet of Article 21 will not come because acquisition of land had not left petitioner's family jobless so that they could not earn their livelihood and rear the family that is the family of the father of the petitioner.

Thus, when all these aspects are taken into consideration, then judgment of Orissa High Court in Arun Kumar Pal which has dealt with the facet of Article 21 is not applicable to the facts of the case, because family was admittedly not deprived of the source of life or livelihood as father of the petitioner was already in employment of NCL. Secondly, when piece of land was small i..e. 1817 sqft and alternate plot was given free of cost then that too measuring 2400 sqft then that aspect too got compensated, thus the ratio of law laid down in case of NTPC Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Odisha & Ors (supra) too will not be applicable because within the frame work of R and R plan i.e. Rehabilitation and Resettlement plan, there is no provision for grant of compulsory employment. Provision is only for an attempt to compensate the person whose land is taken away and that too priority is given to those whose land was more that one acre or who had received compensation of quantum less than 50,000. Thus, there is non violation of terms and conditions of R and R plan.

In the present case, admittedly, land of the petitioner's father was less than one acre. Therefore, in terms of Clause (c) of para 7.1 his father was given

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 8/18/2023 10:22:18 AM

alternate plot and that being given, and as is mentioned in Annexure P-14, petitioner was requested to register himself with the concerned cooperative society to whom sub contracting was given for petty works within the premises of the respondents but petitioner did not deem it fit to register himself with the concerned cooperative society so to obtain works which were out sourced by the company, petitioner cannot raise a bone of contention.

At this stage, Smt. Smita Arora Varma submits that the policy deals with allotment of shop.

Clause (c) is very clear and unambiguous. In Clause(c) it is mentioned as under -:

"It is anticipated that because of the limited number of the vacancies and opportunities for shop allotment generally it will not be possible to accommodate categories (a) and (b) above, however, these list can be kept and given such concessions subject to available vacancies/opportunities."

Thus, it is evident from a plain reading of Clause (c) that in view of limited number of vacancies and limited number of opportunities for shop allotment persons falling in Clause (a) of para 7.1 of the policy were ousted i.e. those whose land and/or house was acquired for less than one acre.

Thus, petitioner was automatically out and was not entitled to any appointment or allotment of shop, in terms of other opportunities his father was granted a plot and, therefore, in view of such facts and policy is understood in the totality then it cannot be said that any injustice has been done to the petitioner by not allowing him employment.

At this stage, Smt. Smita Arora Varma submits that if there are vacancies his case may be considered now.

Shri Jain submits that petitioner has now attained age of 47 years he has Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 8/18/2023 10:22:18 AM

become over age for employment.

Therefore, said request too can also not be considered. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Tabish

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 8/18/2023 10:22:18 AM