Dismissed¶54

Hppcl and Another v. Raj Kumar and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC17 Dec 2024LPA/359/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court LPA 2024 HPPCL Sainj Hydro Electric Project Resettlement and Rehabilitation Plan Notification 19.01.2006 Clause 6 Clause 6.0(a) Clause 6.1 land oustees project affected families employment mandamus Deputy Commissioner Kullu outsource employment preferential recruitment regular employment appeal dismissed

What did the court decide?

Clauses 6.0(a) and 6.1 of the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Plan do not apply to the case, as the petitioners' case is duly covered by Clause 6, which is independent of Clauses 6.0(a) and 6.1. ¶46

Hppcl and Another Vs Raj Kumar and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, who had not become fully landless on account of acquisition of their land for the Sainj Hydro Electric Project, are entitled to employment under Clause 6 of the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Plan.

¶23

Court's answer

Clauses 6.0(a) and 6.1 of the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Plan do not apply to the case, as the petitioners' case is duly covered by Clause 6, which is independent of Clauses 6.0(a) and 6.1.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

Clause 6 specifically deals with a family that, though not rendered completely landless by the acquisition, may have lost its source of livelihood completely, and with persons lacking the capabilities or financial strength to take on any other occupation.

¶47

Key takeaways

Only Clause 6(iii) (other affected families) applies to the petitioners, and the respondents are under an obligation to provide employment to them at the first given chance.ratio¶52
The respondents could not have resorted to fresh recruitments in the categories covered by Clause 6 without first giving a chance to the land oustees eligible for employment; this is what the learned writ Court had held.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (LPA No. 359 of 2024, decided 17.12.2024; Tarlok Singh Chauhan, ACJ, and Satyen Vaidya, Judge) dismissed the appeal by HPPCL and another against the writ Court's judgment directing them to provide suitable employment to the respondents, oustees whose land was acquired in 2008 for the Sainj Hydro Electric Project, under Clause 6 of the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Plan framed vide Notification dated 19.01.2006. Held: Clause 6 applies to project affected families who, though not rendered completely landless, lost their source of livelihood completely or lack the capabilities or financial strength to take on any other occupation; Clauses 6.0(a) and 6.1 do not apply, the petitioners' case being covered by the independent Clause 6; the petitioners fall within Clause 6(iii) (other affected families), and the project authorities were bound to give eligible land oustees the first chance in fresh recruitment before resorting to normal recruitment. Appeal dismissed along with pending applications, if any.

¶1

( 2024:HHC:15242 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶3

LPA No. 359 of 2024 Decided on: 17^th December, 2024 HPPCL and another .......Appellants Versus Raj Kumar and others ...Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶8

For the appellants: Mr.Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 6.

¶9

Mr.Govind Korla, Addl. A.G and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Dy. A.G., for respondents No.7 and 8.

¶10

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, ACJ (Oral)

¶11

Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned writ Court, the appellants, who had been arrayed as respondents No.2 and 3 before the learned writ Court, have filed the instant appeal.

¶12

The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as they were before the learned writ Court.

¶13

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶14

( 2024:HHC:15242 )

¶15

¶16

The petitioners had approached the learned writ Court, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus against respondents No.2 and 3 to extend the benefit of Resettlement and Rehabilitation Plan, by providing regular employment to them from the due date.

¶17

It was averred that the land of the petitioners had been acquired by the respondents for the construction of Sainj Hydro Electric Project in the year 2008. Pursuant to the acquisition, the Government of Himachal Pradesh with a view to protect the interest of the oustees whose land had been acquired framed Resettlement and Rehabilitation Plan vide Notification dated 19.01.2006. In terms of Clause 6 thereof, the employment was agreed to the provided to the affected families, but no employment was provided to anyone of family members of the petitioners, constraining them to approach the learned writ Court.

¶18

The respondents filed the reply, wherein, the factual matrix was not denied. The aforesaid claim of the petitioners was sought to be defeated on two grounds (i) that the petitioners had not become landless on account of acquisition of their land and, therefore, they are estopped from claiming employment in terms of Clause 6 of the plan (ii)

¶19

( 2024:HHC:15242 )

¶20

¶21

pursuant to the report given by the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, one of the family members of the petitioners’ family had been provided employment on outsource basis.

¶22

The learned writ Court after hearing the arguments and perusing the material available on record allowed the petition by directing respondents No.2 and 3 (appellants herein) to provide suitable employment to the petitioners in terms of the provisions contained in Clause 6 of the scheme forthwith expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months.

¶23

It is vehemently argued by Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate that since the petitioners have not become fully landless and are not project affected families, therefore, they are not entitled to any employment.

¶24

In order to determine this issue, it shall be apt to reproduce Clause 6 of the Plan along-with Clause 6.0(a) and 6.1, upon which, reliance had been placed by respondents No.2 and 3 to deny the claim of the petitioners, which read as under:-

¶25

“ 6. Employment

¶26

One member of each Project Affected Family rendered landless will be provided employment by the Project Authority in the category of skilled/ semiskilled/

¶27

( 2024:HHC:15242 )

¶28

¶29

unskilled workmen subject to fulfilling the requisite criteria/qualification and as and when any fresh recruitment is done in these categories, it would be ensured that land oustees eligible for employment as mentioned above are given chance first and normal recruitment would be made only if none are eligible & willing from amongst them. However, persons who are allotted shops shall not be eligible for benefit of employment and vice versa. The following criteria will be adhered to by the Deputy Commissioner concerned for providing of preference while sponsoring the names for employment to the Project Authority.

¶30

i. Affected families whose entire land has been acquired.

¶31

ii. Affected families who have become landless on account of acquisition of land by the project.

¶32

iii. Other affected families.

¶33

Within these categories preference will be given on the basis of quantum of land acquired. Those who lose more land will come first.

¶34

6.0(a) If there are some families who have lost their source of livelihood completely and do not have the capabilities or the financial strength to take on any other occupation and are not even provided alternate land, the project authorities may consider to provide direct employment to the members of such families as a special case on recommendation from the Deputy Commissioner and after due verification.

¶35

6.1 The main PAF who are eligible for direct employment but have not been provided employment will be given a special rehabilitation/employment grant

¶36

( 2024:HHC:15242 )

¶37

¶38

equivalent to 1000days of minimum wage for labour per family. (The employment here will mean regular employment in the organization building of the project). The PAF’s will be given option to wait for direct employment.”

¶39

It would be noticed that one member of each

¶40

project affected family who had been rendered landless was to be provided employment by the Project Authorities in the category of skilled/semi-skilled/un-skilled workmen subject to fulfilling the requisite criteria/qualification. Further, it was to be ensured that whenever fresh recruitments is done in these categories, the land oustees eligible for employment were to be given first chance and only then, normal recruitments could have been made, that too, if none were eligible and willing from amongst the project affected family members.

¶41

While making recruitments, the Deputy Commissioner was to ensure that the appointments are made on preferential basis in the following manner:- i. Firstly, considering the names from the affected families whose entire land had been acquired. ii Secondly, the affected families who have become landless on account of acquisition of land by the project and;

¶42

iii. Lastly, from the other affected families.

¶43

( 2024:HHC:15242 )

¶44

¶45

It was to be ensured that within these categories, preference would be given on the basis of quantum of land acquired. Those who had lost more land, would be given priority and taken up first.

¶46

As regards the provisions contained in Clause 6.0(a) and 6.1, we find that these provisions do not apply to the case in hand, as the case of the petitioners is duly covered by Clause 6 which is independent of Clause 6.0(a) and 6.1.

¶47

Clause 6 specifically talks about employment to be provided to one member each of project affected family rendered landless on account of acquisition of their land for construction of dam. This provision specifically deals with a family who though may not have been rendered completely landless on account of acquisition of their land, but may have lost their source of livelihood completely. This provision also deals with situation where a person on account of acquisition of land does not have the capabilities or the financial strength to take on any other occupation.

¶48

Clause 6.1 further provides that main project affected family, who is eligible for direct employment, but have not been provided employment would be given a special

¶49

( 2024:HHC:15242 )

¶50

¶51

rehabilitation/employment grant equivalent to 1000 days of minimum wage for labour per family.

¶52

As observed above, it is only Clause 6(iii) which applies to the case of the petitioners and, therefore, the respondents are under an obligation to provide employment to them at the first given chance and only then, normal recruitment could have been resorted to by the respondents.

¶53

Apart from the above, it needs to be noticed that it is not the case of respondents No.2 and 3 that they have not made any recruitments, but as observed above, the respondents could not have resorted to fresh recruitments in the categories covered by Clause 6 by giving first chance and appointing the land oustees, eligible for the employment and only thereafter resorted to normal recruitments. This is precisely what the learned writ Court had held.

¶54

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.

¶55

( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Acting Chief Justice

¶56

December 17, 2024 ( Satyen Vaidya ) (naveen) Judge

Hppcl and Another v. Raj Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hppcl and Another v. Raj Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kapil Thakur Vs Hrtc and Another

State of Hp and Another Vs Sher Singh Alias Niku and Others

Tota Ram Vs State of Hp and Others

Anil Sood Vs State of Hp and Others

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Hp

Budh Ram (Deseased) and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.