Petitioners challenged non-appointment of family members despite land acquisition policy promising employment. Court directed respondents to decide legal notices and consider employment claims within two months.
Direction to decide legal notices and consider employment claim based on government notifications within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
CWP No.20710 of 2010
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision: 22.11.2010
Vinod Kumar and another ... Petitioners
Versus
The Managing Director, Haryana, Power Generation Corporation and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Sudhir Kumar, Advocate,for the respondents.
PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral):
Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court, Mr.Sudhir Kumar, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Requisite number of copies of the paper-book have been supplied to him today in Court.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the petition is disposed of at the motion stage.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
The land of the petitioner was acquired by the Government for establishment of Panipat Thermal Power Plant at Panipat in the year, 1984. One of the conditions of the policy decision taken by the respondents was to provide employment to one of the members of the family whose land has been acquired for the power plant.
The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the land of the petitioners family was acquired, but no member of the family has been given appointment. The father of the petitioner applied for employment,
2
CWP No.20710 of 2010
for his elder son, namely, Narender Kumar, but no employment was given to him. Narender Kumar, unfortunately expired in 2003. Petitioners were minor at the time when the land was acquired. The father of the petitioners also expired in July, 2004. The petitioners now have attained majority. Thereafter, petitioner No.2 had applied for employment, but no appointment was given to him. The petitioners served legal notices upon the respondents for the relief claimed in the writ petition but no decision has been taken thereon.
In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide Legal Notices (Annexures P-3 and P-4) and to consider the claim of the petitioners for employment in terms of the policy decision of the government notified vide notification dated 06.05.1984 and subsequent notification dated 07.04.1992, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the competent authority.
22.11.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the government is liable to provide employment to family members of land acquired for the Panipat Thermal Power Plant as per policy notifications.
Vinod Kumar
The Managing Director, Haryana Power Generation Corporation
Permod Kohli
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
