PRIYESH KAISTHA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:

(2.) For having bird's eye view, facts relevant for proper adjudication of the case at hand are that land of the father of the petitioner came to be acquired for construction of Parbati Hydroelectric Project, Behali, Tehsil Sainj, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in the year 2003 qua which adequate compensation also stands paid to father of the petitioner. Besides compensation, State of Himachal Pradesh with a view to protect the interest of oustees, framed Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme/Plan (for short, 'R&R Scheme/Plan') vide Notification dtd. 27/4/2006 (Annexure P- 2). Clause 3.0 of afore Scheme deals with employment to one of the member of the project affected family. Since despite there being acquisition of land of the father of the petitioner and his being declared member of projected affected family, no steps ever came to be initiated at the behest of respondent No.3 to provide employment to petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove.

(3.) Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply, wherein factum with regard to acquisition of land of the father of the petitioner for construction of hydro power project as well as recommendation made by Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, for providing employment to the petitioner under Clause 3.0 of R&R Scheme/Plan has not been disputed, rather stands duly admitted. Claim, as put forth by the petitioner herein has been sought to be defeated mainly on two grounds; (i) petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings after inordinate delay and there is no explanation qua the delay, if any, rendered in the petition; and (ii) pursuant to report given by Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, one of the member of project affected family was eligible to be provided minimum wages and payment under Payment of Wages Act for one thousand days, which though was offered to the petitioner, but he refused to avail the same. Besides above, it has also been claimed on behalf of respondent No.3 that R&R Scheme/Plan sought to be pressed into service stand replaced with the introduction of Livelihood Assistance Scheme, which came into force in the year 2015 and as per same, no claim for providing employment can be accepted, rather monetary assistance can be provided, which though in the case at hand was offered to the petitioner, but he refused to accept the same. It has also been stated in the reply filed by respondent No.3 that in terms of R&R Scheme/Plan, job was offered to the father of the petitioner, but he refused to accept the same and as such, at this stage, his son cannot be permitted to rake-up the issue, which otherwise stand closed.