Dismissed

Megharani Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Sept 2026WPS/6804/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed writ petitions challenging the contractual nature of employment offered to two petitioners, land oustees of a power project. The court held that the Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, does not stipulate that employment must be regular or permanent and that the petitioners lacked an indefeasible right to regular posts when all sanctioned posts were already filled.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for regular appointment on the post of Plant Attendant Grade-II was rejected; both writ petitions were dismissed.

Megharani Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

1 / 8

¶2

Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTISHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.09.18 10:52:43 +0530

CGHC010347772026

2026:CGHC:40564

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPS No. 6811 of 2026

¶8

Surya Prakash S/o Late Shri Badri Prasad Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Tendubhatha, Post Sarkhon, Tehsil Janjgir, District JanjgirChampa, Presently R/o Q No. T.F.-60, Ward No. 21, Budhwari Bazar, Korba Chhattisgarh

¶9

--- Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

2. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Through Managing Director, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Dangania, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

3. Executive Director Human Resource, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Shed No. 03, C.S. Power Companies Campus, Dangania, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

4. Chief Engineer Atal Bihari Vajpayee Thermal Power Station (Marwa Tendubhata), Post Vidyut Nagar, Lachhanpur, Village - MarwaTendubhatha, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh

¶15

5. Collector District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh

¶16

6. Sub-Divisional Officer Land Acquisition Officer, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh

¶17

--- Respondent(s)

¶18

WPS No. 6804 of 2026

¶19

Megharani Singh D/o Late Dadu Singh Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Tendubhantha, Ward No. 9, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶20

--- Petitioner(s)

¶21

Versus

¶22

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶23

2 / 8

¶24

2. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Through Managing Director, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Dangania, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶25

3. Executive Director Human Resource, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Shed No. 03, Cs Power Companies Campus, Dangania, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶26

4. Chief Engineer Atal Bihari Vajpayee Thermal Power Station (MarwaTendubhata), Post- Vidyut Nagar, Lachhanpur, Village- MarwaTendubhatha, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶27

5. Collector District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶28

6. Sub-Divisional Officer Land Acquisition Officer, Janjgir, DistrictJanjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶29

--- Respondent(s)

¶30

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶31

For Petitioners	:	Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, Advocate
For Respondents/	:	Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. and Ghanshyam
State		Kashyap, Dy. G.A.
For Respondents No. & 3	2 :	Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate

¶32

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)

¶33

Order on Board

¶34

17/09/2026

¶35

Since common facts and grounds are involved in both the petitions, they are being considered and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts and documents of WPS No. 6811 of 2026 are being taken into consideration.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners’ agricultural land situated at Village Tendubhatha, Tehsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, was acquired for the construction of the Railway Line/Ash Pipe Line under the Madwa Tendubhatha Thermal Power Project. He submits that, pursuant to the land acquisition, the petitioners were offered employment vide order dated 19.05.2026, but only on a contractual basis on the post of

¶37

3 / 8

¶38

Junior Attendant for an initial period of three years, on the ground that all sanctioned posts earmarked for employment of land oustees had already been filled.

¶39

Learned counsel further submits that similarly situated persons whose lands were acquired for the very same project were granted regular appointment on the post of Plant Attendant Grade-II vide appointment order dated 22.12.2018. He submits that there is no justification for extending a different treatment to the petitioners, who are similarly affected by the acquisition. Such denial of regular appointment, while granting regular employment to other land oustees of the same project, is arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the principles of fairness and legitimate expectation. He, therefore, prays that the respondents be directed to grant the petitioners regular appointment on the post of Plant Attendant Grade-II instead of contractual appointment.

¶40

Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 & 3 opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the petitioners have already been provided employment as a land oustee in accordance with the applicable policy, vide appointment order dated 19.05.2026, on contractual basis to the post of Junior Attendant for an initial period of three years. He submits that all sanctioned and approved posts earmarked for providing regular employment to land oustees of the project had already been filled up and, therefore, the petitioners could not be granted appointment against a regular post.

¶41

4 / 8

¶42

He further submits that the appointment granted to certain persons vide order dated 22.12.2018 was made at the relevant point of time against the posts then available and the petitioners cannot claim regular appointment as a matter of right merely on the basis of such earlier appointments. It is submitted that the petitioners have no vested right to seek appointment against a regular post in the absence of an available sanctioned post. Therefore, the respondents have not acted arbitrarily or discriminatorily in offering contractual employment to the petitioners, and both the petitions are liable to be dismissed.

¶43

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

¶44

Relevant part of clause 7 of the Model Rehabilitation Policy 2007 of the State of Chhattisgarh is quoted below for ready reference:-

¶45

7. रो�जगा�रोतथा�अन्यसु�वि�धा�एं�-

¶46

7.1 रो�जगा�रोकी�पा�त्रता�ऐसे�वि�स्था�विपातापारिरो��रोकी�हो�गा�ज� भू�-अज�न अधि�विनयमकी��रो� 4 (1) की�अधि�से�चन�की�प्रकी�शनकी�ता�रिरोखकी� ता�न�र्ष�पा � �से�स्�ता#त्ररूपासे�य�से#य%क्तापारिरो��रोकी�रूपाम' अधि�गा(विहोता भू�धिमकी�भू�धिमस्��म�य�पाटट�दा�रोरोहो�हो+।��णि.ज्यि0यकीपारिरोय�जन�ओंकी� लि3एभू�-अज�नसे�प्रभू�वि�ताऐसे�वि�स्था�विपातापारिरो��रो+ जिजनज� 75 प्रविताशता से�अधि�कीगा�धिमअर् ज ि7ताहो�, की�एकीसेदास्यकी�ताथा�औद्यो�विगाकी / खनन पारिरोय�जन�ओंकी�लि3य�भू�-अज�नसे�प्रभू�वि�ताप्रत्य�कीवि�स्था�विपातापारिरो��रो के� एकं े सदसु यक् �उनके �अरे ्ह�त�तथा�उपय�कतत�क् े� अनस� �रु पररि ोय�जन�क�वे �य�ि न्�यनकरे ोन� ��ल एी जं !सु / ससु� ्था�नद�र्वा �ो र�जगो �रा ो क�के �वे ्य�स्था�क�ज�एे गं ।ा

¶47

(अ) पारिरोय�जन�की�की�य< म' रो�जगा�रोदा�ता�सेमयपारिरोय�जन�वि�स्था�विपाता

¶48

5 / 8

¶49

पारिरो��रो+ की�प्र�थाधिमकीता�दा= ज�एगा�।

¶50

(ब) पारिरोय�जन�म' पा�त्रलिशणि?तान�य%�की+ की�ब�होतारोरो�जगा�रोदा�न�की� लि3एउनकी�, शA?णि.कीय�ग्यता�की�अन%से�रोप्रलिश?. की�व्य�स्था�की� ज�एगा�।

¶51

(से) श�सेकी�यवि�भू�गा / से��जविनकीउपाक्रमकी�पारिरोय�जन�की�लि3एभू�अज�नसे�वि�स्था�विपाताऐसे�व्यज्यिक्ताय+ जिजन्हो' रो�जगा�रोकी�पा�त्रता�हो�, की� श्रे�.�की�पादा+ पारोविनय%ज्यिक्ताहो�ता% आय% से�म�म' 2 �र्ष�की�छू�टदा= ज�एगा�। (दा) पारिरोय�जन�से�वि�स्था�विपातापारिरो��रो+ की�3�भूजनकीकी�य�उपा3ब्ध कीरो�न�की�लि3य�आ�श्यकीप्रलिश?. दा�न�की�लि3एवि�श�र्षव्य�स्था�की� ज�एगा�। XXXXX

¶52

From a plain reading of Clause 7.1 of the Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, it is evident that the policy provides for arranging ‘employment’ to one member of each eligible displaced family, subject to his qualification and suitability. The said provision gives priority to Project Affected Persons (PAPs) and also contemplates training and relaxation in age, wherever applicable. However, the policy does not stipulate that the employment so provided to a land oustee must necessarily be on a regular or permanent post. Thus, the expression “employment” used in the policy cannot, in the absence of any specific stipulation, be construed to mean only regular/permanent employment.

¶53

In this regard, reference may also be made to the meaning of the expression “employment” as contained in Black's Law Dictionary, wherein “employment” has been defined as the “act of employing or state of being employed” and also as “Work for which one has

¶54

6 / 8

¶55

been hired and is being paid by an employer.” The definition, therefore, does not, by itself, import any requirement that the employment must be permanent.

¶56

In the present case, admittedly, the petitioners have been offered employment as the land oustee vide order dated 19.05.2026 on the post of Junior Attendant on contractual basis for an initial period of three years, with the stipulation regarding renewal. The respondents have explained that the sanctioned and approved posts earmarked for providing regular employment to the land oustees of the project had already been filled up.

¶57

It is pertinent to mention here that in the order of appointment of the petitioners at clause 1 it has been categorically mentioned that despite filling all the vacant posts under the quota of land oustees, considering the request made by the Collector, District JanjgirChampa and Korba the cases of the remaining land oustees were considered sympathetically by the Board of Directors of the Generation Company and decided to grant appointment on contractual basis. For ready reference clause 1 of the contractual appointment of the petitioners is quoted below :

¶58

“1. जनरो�शनकी# पान�द्वा�रो�वि�णिभून्नपारिरोय�जन�ओं / से#य#त्रकी�विनम��. हो�ता% अर् ज ि7ताभू�धिमकी�वि�स्था�विपातापारिरो��रो+ की�रो�0यश�सेनकी�आ#दाश� पा%न��सेन�विता 2007 (यथा�से#श�धि�ता), रो�0यश�सेनद्वा�रो�अन%म�दिदाता पा%नरो�णि?तापा%न��सेय�जन� 2015 ए�# जनरो�शनकी# पान�की�से#च�3की म#ड3 द्वा�रो�सेमय-सेमयपारोलि3एगाएविन.�य+ की�पारिरोपा�3नम' से#ब#धि�ता से#य#त्र / पारिरोय�जन�हो�ता% भू�वि�स्था�विपाता+ की�लि3एजनरो�शनकी# पान�द्वा�रो� विन��रिरोताए�# रो�0यश�सेनद्वा�रो�अन%म�दिदाताविन��रिरोतासेमस्तापादा+ पारो

¶59

7 / 8

¶60

रो�जगा�रोदिदाएज�न�की�फ3स्�रूपाभू�वि�स्था�विपाता+ की�लि3एविन��रिरोतापादा उपा3ब्धनहोP हो�न�की�की�रो. की3�क्टरो, जिज3�Q ज�#जगा�रो-च�#पा�ए�# की�रोब�की�अन%रो��पारोभू�वि�स्था�विपाता+ की�आ��दान+ पारोसेहो�न%भू�वितापा � �की वि�च�रोकीरोता�हुएजनरो�शनकी# पान�की�से#च�3कीम#ड3 द्वा�रो�लि3एगाए से#कील्पाकी�पारिरोपा�3नम' भू�वि�स्था�विपाता+ की�यहोसे#वि�दा�विनय%ज्यिक्तादा= ज� रोहो�होA।"

¶61

Merely because certain other land oustees were granted appointment on regular posts vide order dated 22.12.2018, the petitioners cannot claim regular appointment as an indefeasible right. The appointments made in the year 2018 have to be considered in the factual and administrative circumstances prevailing at that point of time, particularly with regard to the availability of sanctioned posts. The petitioners cannot claim parity in perpetuity merely on the basis of such earlier appointments, particularly when the respondents have specifically stated that the posts earmarked for regular employment had already been exhausted.

¶62

It is also significant that Clause 7.1 of the Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 uses the expression “रो�जगा�रोकी�व्य�स्था�की�ज�एगा�" and does not use the expressions “regular employment”, “permanent employment” or “appointment against a regular sanctioned post”. Therefore, this Court cannot read into the policy a condition which is not contained therein. The contractual appointment offered to the petitioners, if otherwise in accordance with the applicable policy and the terms of the appointment order, cannot be held to be contrary to the Model Rehabilitation Policy merely because it is not a regular appointment.

¶63

8 / 8

¶64

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the petitioners have been provided the benefit of employment as the land oustee in terms of the applicable policy. No enforceable right to seek appointment on a regular/permanent post of Plant Attendant Grade-II has been established. Consequently, the challenge to the contractual nature of the appointment and the prayer for grant of regular appointment on the post of Plant Attendant Grade-II cannot be accepted.

¶65

Accordingly, both the writ petitions, being devoid of merit, are dismissed at the motion stage itself.

¶66

Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶67

Jyoti

Megharani Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Megharani Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases