Ramlal Martand v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 250 Ramlal Martand, S/o- Shri Banwali Martand, Aged about 52 years, R/o- Village & Post Godhi (Rajgamar), Thana-Balco, Tehsil - Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue & Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, CG

2. Collector, Korba C.G.

3. Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) Korba, District Korba C.G.

4. Chief Engineer (HR) Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Raipur CG

5. Additional Chief Engineer (CMG) Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Korba (East) (CG)

6. Executive Engineer (Civil) M-II DSPM TPS SPGCL Korba (East) CG ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Matten Siddiqui, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 1 to 3/State: Mr. Dheeraj Wankhede, Govt. Advocate.

For Respondent No. 4 to 6. : Mr. Abhishek Sinha & Shri K.R. Nair, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 02/11/2015 (1) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that land belonging to the petitioner's family was acquired for construction of Ash Dam (Rakhad Dam) of Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukharjee Thermal Power Plant, Korba (East). Under the State Government's

Rehabilitation Policy, as well as under the promise made to the land oustees, as would be reflected in the document Annexure P-5 issued under the Signature of Chief Engineer (H.R.) of Chhattisgarh Power Generation Co. Ltd., one member of the affected family is entitled for employment, commensurate to his suitability and eligibility. (3) Learned counsel would further submit that out of 308 affected persons, 220 moved applications for seeking employment and out of the said 220 persons, only 132 persons have been appointed without following any merit criteria. He would also submit that for the present, the petitioner may be permitted to move fresh representations before the respondents and the respondents, in turn, may be directed to decide the same, in accordance with its policy.

(4) Considering the limited nature of relief claimed at this stage, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event the petitioner move fresh representations before the competent authority within a period of 15 days from today, the said authority shall consider and decide the same in an objective manner by a reasoned order, in accordance with its policy and considering the eligibility and suitability of the petitioner, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of submission of representations. The petitioner would be at liberty to move afresh before this Court if his grievances is not redressed.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge D/-