..'^ i; !f.; mGHE0UKr QF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASEUR WRIT PETITIQN fCI No. 600 of2009 PETITIQNERS : 1. Arjun Dewangan, aged 35 years, son of Shri , Madan Lal, resident of village Chhiui, Tahsil Katghora, DistrictKoFba(C.G.) . r 2. Peek Ram, aged 32 years, soii.of SBri Tulsi Ram, resident of village Punarwas, vjllage Kohandiya, Tahsil and DistrictK.orga(C.G.) 'VERSUS. . ' :; ' RESPONDENTS : 1. The National Themial Power Corporation Limited, through the General Managpr, NTPC Sipat, Disli-ict BUaspur (C.G.) .; 2. The Chief Manager CHuman Resources) N.TJ>.C.Limited,K6rba(;C:G.) ; . i WIUTEETITIQNUW)ER.ARTICLE2260FTHECQNSBT^K)NOFINE)I;A SB:Hon'WeSliriSafisliK.A8ni]totri,J. Preseiit: Shri Somfiatll Verma, Advocatefbr tKepetitioner, ; QRALORDER (Passedon31st(layofJanuary,2009) ; -: . 1. Bythis petition, ihepetitioners seekto challenge the order dated 2l.7.20®8'i (Annexure P/4 and P/5) passed by the respondents whereby fhe^pefrfioners^ have been denied of einployment in accordanee with the RetiabilifaticJn^ Acfion FlanofNTPC Limited. , 2. The petitioners are the suecessors of land oustees whose faHds wete;;| acquiired. by NTPC limitfed, .Korba. It is contended fhat the' jl.ather; f petitioner No. 1 namely Madarilal and his.co-parceaer namely (SS^iStS^Ss ^ ri [• have given their laiidin KBata No. 130 aiea 2i055 hetStates'tafld No;38 area,7.129 Ileaaresjn.favoiu' pfresgofidentNo.U.;Ijilie^i|jgM nK^'ssss ofpefitioner N6.'2 naitnely Tulstratti wifli offier ofLatetShn Sakhat^:aM,Smt. Blioon'gave^fheir.1^^ ,area 0.428 heiaai^,K]iata^o.;129area'7.290.heGtares,l|ia^ W SMSBS:w 4.7t0-.&e(^ares,'Khat:a'No,.t76-area-OJ6QI,te(^ai^.M NDil.. '. • .: ...: ^:/. •-:\.:'^.'^^^^^^^ co-sharer&,Kttun§Hia|affla;isc(]BBB :lf^i:l yiiii |n||$a|g|gj|i ;il®li83sSB3Hl:. 1 ^K IB s1 " .-'i mm tl.«'l]t \ "«®-1 3. The grievance ofthe petitioners are thaf though the promise was made to ftie land outstees under the Rehabilitation Scheme that ons member ofeach such family would be given employment in establishnient ofthe respondent No. 1 but the respoudentNo. 1 has not given employment to the petitioners. Therefore, it has been prayed that the respondents be directed to give efflployment to at least one member of each fainily ofthe land oustees i.e. the petitioners herein. 4. Mr. Verma farther submifs that against the aforesaid inaction on fhe part of the respondents, the petitioners filed a wfit petition being W.P. No. 176/2004 earlier before this Court which has Vieen disposed of by order dated 12.10.2007 with a directiofl to the petitioners to make an appliGation for appoiritments before the authorities and respondent No. 1 shall eonsider the application in accordaace with Rehabilitation Action Plan for grant bf employment to the petjtioners/land oustees, as per the promise giyen to ftte land oustees whose lands were acquired by thetn. 5. It is alsosubmitted that in compliance of the said order, the petitioners.;! made applications made applications alongwith the certificateSioftheiri: qualificatiori for grant of employmeirt, which.have been rejected by thfe; NTFCLimitedbyorderdated 21.7.2008 CAiinexureP/4andP/5)., i \'M 6. I have heard leamed counsel &r the petitioners, perused the pleadifagS! ansBW^ documents appended thereto. From the perusal of letter dated 2l|.7«20QSf: (Annexure P/4 and.P/5) issued by the NTPC Limited, it appears tl^ affi|Rl" ;oing fhrough the details, the applications of the petitioners llav|e|' yeeitiJ ;lil:l ^ B: rejected, however, the NTPC limited infbrmed the petitioaers iliat avail the facility of self eitiplpymeiit scheme' througlt I^aial ffi^;8S|i|] i^i:l msleeg? -t '^ Allijt; co^eteive societies, wUichUas^b^ ..'•r/''-: ' ••:'.-••'^... .;- '"'".;.'.' :::'-'..•••••"::..••-'•' . .-. •'... •::-..-''' ;:'.- '"••'•• .:(-. '•'•...""...'.' .';'.:-,...^:-;';-''^,; Thus, fhis petition seeking direetion to the respondents to provid& ^'i;] ett)ploym^,tothepetitioiiersandtheoi^rdated21J.2008(ArfflexUreP/l^,^ andP/2)Hiaybequasl-ied.' • ;% 7. ,The RfihaSyitation policy ofttie respondeIrts-^^TC . fbr grant; of employment fo each and every fflember of the land ousfees ,::.a|s family tauf fbr' cohsideration 6n the basis of their.qualifi.Cation. It; is a case^i |||| ^•'s^ where/the petitioners do riot have required qualiftcations as required by the ^iTK| .''S resporldenf No. l.,for erilployment. Thus, the direction sougHtYbyl tfie^^ •';.^;j;i: petitionei's to ttie respbndent No. F caniiot be granted in a writjiffisdicti(m;|l|||| -i)' , ! : ' ^ ' .: ': . .: -.'•^•R^SUft; as provisionsofemploymentwassubjecttosuifabilify,eligibility'and0thet"^||i conditions as required for en3ployment. I do not find any fault with the ^||. order. dated 21.7.2008 (Annexure P/l afid P/2). Thus, no mtei-ference fis',, ^||, warranted. 8. Inview 6ftheabove,the petitiori is dismissed.No order asto costs m Sdl- '\ SatishK.Agnihotri; Judge aif i8:: III-