JEET RAM Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the Haryana State Electricity Board to provide him employment in accordance with the policy instructions issued by it. According to these policy instructions which are contained in the letter of May 6, 1994, the respondents had decided to "provide employment to dependents of land- owners whose land has been acquired by the Board for the Thermal/Hydel Projects". This appointment was to be granted "in case it is felt that by acquisition of land, the means of livelihood have been taken away ...". It is only in the event of this condition being fulfilled that the employment was to be given to one member of the family on compassionate grounds.

(2.) The petitioner claims that "the Haryana State Electricity Board had set up a Thermal Power Plant at Panipat and for that purpose, had acquired the lands in which the petitioner had share..... The land was acquired at different stages prior to 1991." It has been further averred that various persons who were similarly situated as the petitioner had been granted appointments. Reference has been made to a Division Bench Judgement of this Court in Krishan Kumar and others v. The Haryana State Electricity Board and others, CWP No. 6539 of 1994 which was decided on January 25, 1995. The petitioner further alleges that he had submitted a representation dated July 25, 1995, with a request for the grant of employment. The needful having not been done, he has approached this Court.

(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been inter alia averred that the petitioner's claim is not sustainable as "at no point of time an application was made by the proper person (owner of the land) to the respondents prior to 13.12.1991". It has been further submitted that the last date for the receipt of application was December 13, 1991. Till that date, no application was received from the owner of the land because under the relevant policy, the owners of the land were required to ask for the employment of their dependents in case their means of livelihood were taken away by acquiring the land. According to the respondents, the petitioner was not shown as a shareholder in the acquired land or in the award given by the Land Acquisition Collector. Still further, the petitioner's claim was not sponsored by his father or his grandfather. In these circumstances, the respondents maintain that there is no merit in the claim made by the petitioner. The writ petition should be dismissed.