IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 798 of 2007. Date of decision: 27.08.2011 ___________________________________________________ Dhelo …. Petitioner. Versus The National Hydro Electric Power Corp. Ltd & others.. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. AG for respondents No.2 and 3. ______________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that her grandson Ajay Singh be granted employment under the Relief and Rehabilitation Package approved for land oustees of Chamera-II Project. As per the Relief and Rehabilitation Package provided for the persons whose land had been acquired for purposes of construction of the Chamera Project Phase-II, one member of the family whose land was acquired was to be granted employment. ___________ Whether the Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes. 2 2. The admitted position is that the land of the petitioner was acquired. The land of her son Chaman Singh was also acquired. The elder son of Chaman Singh, namely Sh. Vijay Singh has already been granted employment. Now, the claim of the petitioner is that Sh. Ajay Singh who is the younger son of Chaman Singh be also granted employment, as he is part of her family. This prayer has been rejected by the State and Shri Vijay Singh has been considered one of those persons identified for the grant of Rehabilitation Package. 3. In the Pariwar Register, the family of Chaman Singh separated from Dhelo just about three months prior to the Rehabilitation Package. Even if it is accepted that the family of Chaman Singh had separated from his mother Dhelo, then obviously the son of Chaman Singh will go with him and not with the mother of Chaman Singh. The purpose of the Rehabilitation Package is to ensure that one family members of each family is given employment and the Rehabilitation Package cannot be interpreted in such a manner that just by bifurcating the family, more than one member of one family gets employment under the garb of the Rehabilitation Package. Therefore, I find no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly rejected. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge August 27, 2011. (Krn Guleria)