HIRA LAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/writ petitioner in this writ appeal is challenging the order dtd. 6/1/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.721/2016 whereby the writ petition filed against the order dated 15/16/1/2015 (Annexure P/1) rejecting the claim of the appellant for employment, has been dismissed.

(2.) It is the case of the appellant/petitioner that his father, namely, Shri Gokul owned a small piece of land bearing Khasra No.4/2 , area 0.13 acres at Village-Jarahajel, P.C. No.35/20, Tahsil-Katghora, Distt. Korba, which was acquired by the respondents/SECL in the year 1983 and due compensation under the acquisition proceedings was paid to the land owner. In 2013, the appellant submitted an application for the first time to the respondents seeking employment against the land which was acquired in 1983. The said application was duly processed and after due consideration of the documents submitted by the appellant, vide impugned order dated 15/16/1/2015 (Annexure P/1), the respondents rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that since on the date of acquisition, he was not born, he was not dependent on the original owner on the date of acquisition and therefore, he could not have been provided employment. Against the said order, the appellant filed writ petition i.e. WPS No.721/2016, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 6/1/2021. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the information obtained by the appellant under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the respondents/SECL have, in fact, during the intervening period, provided employment to around 11 persons who were also born subsequent to the acquisition proceedings and therefore, on the ground of parity, the appellant's claim ought to have been allowed by the respondents. The appellant has raised his legitimate claim under the relevant policy of the State Government but the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the claim of the appellant and thus, erred in passing the impugned order.