HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting.) (Chapter VIII Rule 32 (2)(b) Description of the case. WPSS No. 3474 of 2001 Prem Singh and others Vs Dugdhshala Vikas Uttaranchal and others. Approved for reporting. __________________ Not approved for reporting Date of decision 24.08.2006 Initial of Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3474 (SS) OF 2001 1. Prem Singh, S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh, 2. Bhagwan Singh, S/o Sri Ram Chandar, 3. Shanti Prasad, S/o Shri Govardhan, 4. Kamla Ram, S/o Sri Maya Ram, 5. Indu Ballabh, S/o Shri Satya Narain, 6. Bal Krishna, S/o Shri Radhe Shyam, 7. Smt. Bhuvneshwari, W/o Shri Jagdamba Prasad, All above residents of Village Matli, Patti Matli, District Uttarkashi. …….….Petitioners. Versus 1. Dugdhshala Vikas, Uttaranchal, through Dugdh Commissioner, Dehradun. 2. Manager/Up Dugdhshala Vikas Adhikari, Dugdhshala Vikas, Uttaranchal, Uttarkashi. 3. District Magistrate, Uttarkashi. ……..Respondents. Dated: 24.08.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for their appointment on Class-III and Class-IV post in the office of respondent no.2. 3. Briefly stated, petitioners were inclined to give their land for construction of building of Dugdhshala in Village Matli, District Uttarkashi in meeting held on 25.02.1991 and 12.03.1991. 4. It was agreed between the respondents and the representatives villagers and petitioners that if the respondents acquired the land of petitioner, they will have to provide the job to the petitioners or one of family members of their family in the office of the respondent no. 2. The minutes of the meeting are to the following effects:- “izLrko la[;k &1 Ekkryh xzke] tuin mRRkjdk”kh ls 30 dkLrdkj tks viuh they mRRkdk”kh nqX/k la?k ds fy, nsuk pkgrs gS] ds [kljk [krkSuh ds vuqlkj izR;sd dkLrdkj ds fgLls dh lwpuk rglhynkj Mq.Mk ls izkIr djus ij fopkjA loZlEEkfr ls fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd izLrkfor nqX/k”kkyk fuekZ.k gsrq Hkwfe esa ftrus dkLrdkjksa dh tehu gS] ds [kljk [krkSuh o uD”kk vkfn dk fooj.k fnukad 4&3&1991 ds ckn rglhynkj Mq.Mk ls izkIr fd;k tk;A “izLrko la[;k &2 Ekkryh xzke ds xzke iz/kku dh v/;{krk esa mijksDr izLrkfor ikap lnL;ksa dh desVh }kjk] ftudh tehu nqX/k”kkyk fuekZ.k gsrq yh tk jgh gS] ds O;fDr;ksa dks ;ksX;rk ds vuqlkj] nqX/k la/k dh lsok esa ysus ij fopkjA bl lECkU/k esa fu.kZ; fy;k Xk;k fd nqX/k la?k] mRRkjdk”kh esa ftrus Hkh in nqX/k vk;qDr }kjk Lohd`r fd;s tk;saxs rFkk mDRk in ij nqX/k vk;qDr }kjk fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk ,oa p;u izfdz;k ds vuqlkj Hkwfe nsus okys ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dks ukSdjh ojh;rk nh tk;sxhA izR;sd ifjokj ls dsoy ,d O;fDr dks gh ukSdjh nsus dk IkzLrko gSA tks in VsfDudy ,oa mPp f”k{kk ds gS vkSj ml ;ksX;rk ds vuqlkj Hkwfe vfTkZr ifjokjksa ds lnL; ugha fey ikrs gS] ,sls in ckgj ls Hkjs tk;saxsA “izLrko la[;k &3 Hkwfe dh dz; nj fu/kkZfjr djus ij fopkjA Xkze iz/kku ekryh Jh peu yky “kkg us ftykf/kdkjh] mRrjdk”kh egksn; ds i= la[;k eseks 89&90 fnukad 17 tqykbZ 90 ds i= dk lUnHkZ fn;k] ftlds vuq;kj eq0 12]000&00 izfr ukyh dk nj crk;k x;k gSA bl i= dh izfr dysDVªsV ls izkIr dh tk;s rFkk lc jftLVªkj] mRRkjdk”kh ls Hkh bl {ks= esa jftLVªh dh x;h tehu dk cktk: ewY; dh tkudkjh dj mls Hkh vxyh cSBd es j[kk tk; rFkk vxyh cSBd fnukad 12&3&1991 dks le; 4 cts mi nqX/k”kkyk fodkl vf/kdkjh] Kkulw] mRRkjdk”kh ds dk;kZy; esa gksuk fuf”pr fd;k tkrk gSA Hkwfe dz; ds nj dh vfURke jiV nsus gsrq leLRk dkxtkr bl chp ,df=r dj fn;s tkosaA” 5. Aggrieved by the said proposal, they have executed the registered sale deed, which have been annexed along with the writ petition as Annexures No. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 to the writ petition. 6. The said legitimate expectation was given to the petitioner as will appear from the letter dated 8th July, 1991 to the following effect:- “6. That thereafter on 8.7.1991 the respondent no. 2 wrote a letter to Gram Pradhan of Village Matli, District Uttarakashi to the effect that one member of family, whose land have been acquired, will be provided jobs in the department, after relaxation of their age up to 40 years.” 7. The grievance of the petitioners is that the appointment letters have already been issued to the following persons on the Class III and Class-IV Posts:- 1) Balak Ram S/o Shri Radhe Shyam, 2) Dhani Lal, S/o Shri Sohan Lal, 3) Jai Singh, S/o Sri Narain Singh, 4) Sunder Lal, S/o Shri Galthya, 5) Ganesh Lal, S/o Shri Retti Lal, 6) Vijay Singh S/o Surat Singh, 7) Jagmohan Singh, S/o Shri Jaipal Singh, 8) Manmohan Singh, S/o Shri Jaipal Singh, 9) Smt. Rajni D/o Shri Ambika Prasad, 10) Rukum Singh, S/o Shri Tika Ram, 11) Smt. Urmila Devi, W/o Shri Parmanand Nautiyal, 12) Roshan Kapoor, S/o Shri Sundar Lal. 8. Their lands have already been acquired. However, further grievance of the petitioner is that they have not been issued the appointment letter. 9. Sri V.K. Bisht appearing for the respondents has submitted that they are some of them have been given the appointment and some of them have not and the proposal has been sent. The said fact has been mentioned in paragraph 4 of the supplementary counter affidavit. The same is quoted below:- “4. That copy of the order dated 8-11-2005 was sent to respondent no. 1 by the answering respondent on 20-11-2005. The respondent no. 1 took decision in the matter of appointment of the petitioner no. 1,3,4 and 5 on 27.01.2006.” 10. And the decision has been taken by the Director Development on 27.10.2006 to the following effect:- “,slh fLFkfr esa ubZ fu;qfDr gsrq vuqeksnu pkgus dk D;k vkSfpR; gSa\ fu;qfDr gsrq fjDr in dk gksuk vko”;d gS tcfd vkidh la[;k esa Lohd`r 27 inksa ds lkis”k 46 deZpkjh dk;Zjr gSA vr% mijksDr fLFkfr esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dh ubZ fu;qfDr gsrq vuqeksnu fn;k tkuk laHko ugh a gSA ;|fi ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr varfje vkns”k rFkk fnukad 25&02&1991 dks dz; desVh rFkk fodz; desVh ds le{k gq, le>kSrs dk lEeku djrs gq, Hkfo’; esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dh fu;qfDr gksus ij mijksDr of.kZr ;kfpx.kksa dks ojh;rk nh tk;saA” 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kapila Hingdorani Vs. State of Bihar 2003(7) AIC18 (SC) 194 has observed as under:-: “Paragraph – 50: The term ‘life’ used in Article 21 of the Constitution of India has a wide and far reaching concept. It includes livelihood and so many other facets thereof. ‘Life’, as observed by Filed, J. in Munn V. Illinois [1877)94)US 1131] means something more than mere animal existence and the inhibition against the deprivation of life extends to all those limits and facilities by which life is enjoyed. [See Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and others [1983(1) SCC 124] Olga Tellis and others Vs Bombay Municipal Corporation and others [1985(3) SCC 545].” 12. In view of the aforesaid, respondent no. 1 is directed to finalize the appointment/regularize complete the formalities within a period of two months if possible by giving appointment in pursuance of the aforesaid judgment, 13. Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cost. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 24.08.2006 Rathour