Sharda Manikpuri v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.7179 of 2016 Sharda Manikpuri D/o Shri Birbal Das Manikpuri, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Jarve, Tehsil Baloda, District Janjgir Champa Presently Residing At Village Kaapan, Thana Naila, Post Kaapan, Tehsil Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Energy, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd., Through Its Managing Director, Danganiya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3. Chief Engineer (Human Resource), Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd., Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

4. Superintendent Engineer (Civil), Circle-Ill, 2x500 M W MadwaTendubhanta, Thermal Power Project, Village- Madwa, DistrictJanjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

5. Collector, Janjgir Champa District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

6. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Janjgir-Cum- Land Acquisition Officer, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) ----Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Harsh Wardhan, Advocate.

For State : Shri Dhiraj Wankhede, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 03/01/2017 (1) Heard.

(2) By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking appointment in terms of Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 (for short, 'Rehabilitation Policy') (Annexure P/2) issued by the State of

Chhattisgarh on 15th May, 2008 and was also amended in the year 2011. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's land has been acquired by respondents No.2 & 3 in the year 2008 but they are not complying with the Rehabilitation Policy and are not granting any appointment in terms of the Rehabilitation Policy. It was further contended that though the petitioner has filed several representations before respondents No.2 & 3 but the same are not being decided by them.

(3) In reply to above, State Counsel submits that if petitioner files fresh representation, the same shall be considered by respondents No.2 & 3 in accordance with law, to which, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection.

(4) Therefore, the petition stands disposed of. If the petitioner files fresh representation before respondents No.2 & 3 within a period of one month from today, the respondents No.2 & 3 are directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with rules, regulations and the Rehabilitation Policy, as early as possible, preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-