1 - Manish Kumar Patel S/o Dhaniram Patel Aged About 28 Years R/o Village v. 1 - National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Through Senior Manager
Case Details
1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6563 of 2021 1 - Manish Kumar Patel S/o Dhaniram Patel Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Sukhri (Rank), Post Amarsahi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Through Senior Manager (Human Resource), National Thermal Power Gorporation Limited, Post Office Ujjawal Nagar, Sipat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner For Respondent along with Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 31.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s)-: “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders quashing the order dated 07.05.2016 (Annexure P/1) and the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of petitioner for grant of employment as per Rehabilitation Scheme. 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Mr. Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the lands bearing Survey Nos 1413/1, 1463 & 1492 were initially recorded in the name of the grandfather of the -2- petitioner, namely Sukhau. He would further submit that for the establishment of “Super Thermal Power Project, Seepat”, a large chunk of land of various persons was acquired, including the lands of the grandfather of the petitioner. He would contend that an award was passed on 22.11.1999 in the name of the grandmother of the petitioner, and compensation to the tune of Rs 2,93,334/- was paid through a cheque. He would further contend that as per the Rehabilitation scheme, one member of the land oustees would be eligible and entitled to appointment. He would also contend that the petitioner made a representation before the Collector to provide employment according to Clause 3 of the Rehabilitation Policy, but it has been rejected vide order dated 07.05.2016 on the ground that one member of the family, i.e. brother of the petitioner, has already been provided employment under the respondent against the acquired land. He would also submit that, as the entire land of the father of the petitioner was acquired, according to the Rehabilitation Policy, more members of the family should have been provided employment. He would state that the action of the respondent is in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. He would pray to quash the order dated 07.05.2016 and to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Paranjpe. He would submit that an award was passed on 22.11.1999 and immediately thereafter, compensation was paid, which was accepted by the father of the petitioner. He would further submit 3 that an application was moved by the petitioner seeking employment in lieu of the acquisition of land, which was rejected vide order dated 07.05.2016. He would contend that the said document was collected by the petitioner under RTI, whereby the petitioner was informed that his brother had already been provided employment under the Rehabilitation Policy. He would further contend that the petitioner filed this petition on 17.11.2021 without explaining the delay. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Clause 3.1.0 of RAP deals with the employment and the same is reproduced herein below for reference:- 3.1.0 EMPLOYMENT: As Sipat project is being installed with environment friendly super critical technology, employment opportunities in NTPC shall be comparatively less. In view of this " Land for Land" option, as described in Chapter II has been considered as the prime rehabilitation measure. However for direct employment in NTPC in the unskilled category only PAPs would be considered. In the skilled category preference would be given to them. In both categories employment shall be subject to eligibility as per NTPC's R&R Policy, availability of vacancies, NTPC's recruitment policy and Govt.'s policy on reservation. 6. Clause 3.1.1 talks about eligibility for employment and the same is also reproduced herein below:- 3.1.1 ELIGIBILITY FOR EMPLOYMENT: 3.1.1.1 The basis of extending the preference in employment will be on family basis. The family includes husband, wife and dependant children. The eligibility criteria will be as follows: -4- 3.1.1.2 The broader groups of Project Affected Persons (Khatedars) in crder of preference will be as below: Group-1: Those Project Affected Persons (Khatedars) who are resident of the area and are owner of the acquired land for more than 20 years prior to date of Sec.4 (1) Notification. Group-2: Those Project Affected Persons (Khatedars) who are resident of the area and are owner of the acquired land for more than 10 years prior to date of Sec.4 (1) Notification. Group-3: Those Project Affected Persons (Khatedars) who are resident of the area and are owner of the acquired land for more than 01 year prior to date of Sec.4 (1) Notification. 3.1.1.3 Further, each of the above three groups shall have three sub-groups which shall, in order of group priority, be as below and comprise of: Sub-group (a): Those PAPs (Khatedars) whose more than 5.0 (five) acres land is acquired. Sub-group (b): Those PAPs (Khatedars) whose 1.0 (one) acre to 5.0 (five) acre land is acquired. Sub-group (c): Those PAPs (Khatedars) whose less than 1.0 (one) acre land is acquired. 3.1.1.4 In each of the above three sub-groups, the priority list of the PAPS (Khatedars) shall be prepared in the descending order of the percentage of land acquired out of the total land holding of the respective PAPS (Khatedars). 7. From a bare reading of the above-stated provisions, it is quite vivid that the preference in employment will be on a family basis. Admittedly, as per provisions of Clause 3.1.1 of RAP, the family includes husband, wife and dependent children, meaning thereby, preference would be given to one member of each family. 8. In the present case, one member of the land oustee’s family has already been provided employment under the respondent, and this fact is not disputed by the petitioner. According to the Rehabilitation Policy, only one member of the family would be entitled to 5 consideration if the area of the land is one acre or more. 9. With regard to the delay and laches, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent vide order dated 07.05.2016, and this petition has been preferred on 17.11.2021 and in para 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that there is no delay in filing the instant petition. Though an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner explaining the delay, I do not find the explanation satisfactory. 10.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tridip Kumar Dingal & others Vs. State of W.B. & others, (2009) 1 SCC 768, in para 56 to 58 held as under:- “56. We are unable to uphold the contention. It is no doubt true that there can be no waiver of fundamental right. But while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 32, 226, 227 or 136 of the Constitution, this Court takes into account certain factors and one of such considerations is delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ-Court. It is well settled that power to issue a writ is discretionary. One of the grounds for refusing reliefs under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. 57. If the petitioner wants to invoke jurisdiction of a writ-Court, he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will indeed be a good ground for refusing to exercise such discretionary jurisdiction. The underlying object of this principle is not to encourage agitation of stale claims and exhume matters which have already been disposed of or settled or where the rights of third parties have accrued in the meantime [vide State of M.P. & Anr. V. Bhailal Bhai, (1964) 6 SCR 261; Moon Mills v. Industrial Court, Bombay, AIR 1967 SC 1450; Bhoop Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (1992) 2 SCR 969]. This principle applies even in case of an infringement of fundamental right [vide Trilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, (1969) 1 SCC 110; Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller, (1969) 1 SCC 185; Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 84]. 58. There is no upper limit and there is no lower limit as to when a person can approach a Court. The question is one of discretion and has to be decided on the basis of facts before the Court depending on and vary from case to case. It will depend upon what -6- the breach of fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and when and how the delay arose.“ 11. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. Remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons; such delay does not deserve any indulgence, and on the
Decision
said ground alone, the writ petition may be dismissed. The doctrine of delay and laches, or for that matter, statutes of limitation, are considered to be statutes of repose and statutes of peace. There must be a lifespan during which a person must approach the court for a remedy. Otherwise, there would be unending uncertainty as to the rights and obligations of the parties. 12.Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tridip Kumar Dingal (supra), in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. 13. Accordingly, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Rekha Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge