T. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPU^ CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION N0. 2-^-s^/2003 PETITIONER : Ganesh Ram Chaturvedi S/o Shri Mithailal Chaturvedi, Aged about 65 years, R/o Village-Jhanjh, P.S.-Pali, Tahsil-Katghora, Distt. Korba (C.G.) VERSUS i^ i^?ss^^^ RESPONDENTS / s^-^- ...^^- ..^•^/ 'T?- ^< ^>^_,.<-^ x,^?^^ 1. General Manager/Chairman, National Thermal Power Corporation, Sipat, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Additional General Manager, National Thermal Power Corporation, Sipat, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Chief Personal Manager, National Thermal Power Corporation, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) -4. The Collector Korba (C.G.) 5. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Tahsil-Katghora, Distt. Korba (C.G.) ' .<?^ ^_^^£± WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 22©/AND3r27 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^f - XI-HC-22 3^T ^TPTl'^T^ iS:?ftaTI^, f^<"ll^^< ^ 200^ 3^^T^T f^fNTW^T ^RW^cT 3:n^T^T[arK^rf?c[ pBtjjtion petiti^ne-r' QC^S 15-7-2005 • Mr, K.N, Nande, Advocate Mr< Prashant Mishr-a, Senic! for respondents No.l to 3. Mr< Sandeep bubey/Govt. By thc instant writ petitioner is that the Mo.149/1, admea^urlng 0.44 Katghora, Distrlct: Korba, construction of raiJwav iine for the time of acquisition of the respondents No,i to 3 m©mb©rof tha por^on who^e lan^ of The peTltioner was acqulred petitioner made a repre^entation Pra^ad Chaturvedi, but neither rV[ <2ppointmenT of the petitioner's pray^d that th©r^^pondont^ b^! one member of the famity of the ji ftetum ha^ fifed on has bs^n mention^s that r^spond Action Pian afTer constitutlon of ^or wcfe lalid mentloni^g sponc^nts chl^Id^^ ^l^dt^te^T'^^K ^^rf^TTOT^T thc petitioner, r Advocate with Mr. B.D. 6uru, jAdvocate Advocat©for r^SDondent^ No.4 & 5. the rdsed by the i^ne-rs Ggricultyra! iand bearing Khasra ^ltuated in Vii'age: Jhwijh, T^hjSii: acquired by respondent No.5 for iNational Thermal Power Corporatjon. At a r'ehabilttotion scheme was floated by therein that empioyment tc8 a famiiy i^ ha^ b©@nacquired wiii b©9iv@n* Th©bnd in the year 2001-02. Thereafter, the for empioyment of hi^ ^on nameiy, Vi^hnu |e representatson Is being decided nor the Is besng made, Therefore, It has been dir@ct©dto 9iva ^mpfoymont to at Joast ^etitjoner. b^haif of rc^pondents No.l to 3 in which Jt No.l to 3 hav^ framed SSehabilitation Viiiage Deveiopment Advisory CommjfTee, 4?n / XI-HC-22 ^ 3^T ^JT^T^FT, ^ft^FT^, f^Tray 3TT^Tq^^T ^TW^T^RI^ s.?-o.-s. . .W. .. ; . 77.^ .-. .TT^ ^Q^ 3TT^^T^T ^l<=h3TT^T ^RW^cT 3T^r^<n'w^rfw -/~2Jr cbJ^Id^^ ^l^^f^te^t^f^RK ^3Tf^T3^T discu^ons tsnd the &istr-jet ^dministratjon asj jm<g.ntioned in the rcturn that a Jwas framed after series of [The respondents are duty bound |no auestion of any discriminQtion or| I have counseil Mr, Nande, iearned counsell r^^pondent NTPC is not giving jpetmoner and even the represenl Ibeina considered and deeided. On the other hand, Mr, Pr<ti ]for respondents No.l to 3 arguedj |Action Plan, r@^pond@n+^ No«l to| [member of the oerson whose avajlabjjity of vacancy and also lcc'ncerned. Z haye perused the of tho ^aid Pian i^ r^gardin^ Emp I.Dla.ns, and it has been mentioned 1f in thc un^kiifed category only category pr^f^rersce wouid b& jetr.pioyment shail be subject to |wei! as the NTPC. It hos further been C^mprehcn^iye ftchabiijtatlon Action Phn j^ons^ Copy of the same i^ Annexure &nl. adhere the poiicy declsion and there is larbitrarine^s* |for the parties. for the petitione-r submitted that the- €rT|pbyment to th^ family member of th^ j'ations by the Detltloner are not ^shanT Mishro, learned Senior Advocate that no doubt under the Rehabiiitation 3 ar©r©quir©dto appoint on©famiiy has been acquired subject to the c^n^idering thc ejigjbiiity of the per^on Rehabijit^tion PA^s <4ction Pian Annexure R"!, Clause 3 |oym^nt, apart fr'om oth^r rehabilitation jierein that "direct empioyment in NTPC would be con^idcrea, In thc ^kiiled ^iv<sn to th&m. In both categories the avdtabjjjty of vGcanci'es. NTPC's XI-HC-22 3^ ^S^KrS^i, ^Tft^^Ko^ 'f^dl^y 3in^T^^eF Wff^TTgTqtSR o»\o,..«^...-...^ 200^3> 3TT^?T^T f^rt^3:n^rr ^iW^cT ys^-' ^TI^T^RfT^T^cr X^ ^h^i •y '^ '\ tMeir avdi^bility fbr •H-ie o|ne recruitment policy' and &ovt/s po|i dea! wjth Eiigibjlity for Empioymertt, Therefore, the responden' maae by the peTJtloner, but requcst of the petition^r ^ubjec| Action Pian i,©.subject to farni'jy member of the petitioner f^r in th^ circum^Tance^, flippJicGtion for appointment of quajjfication and everything to r^sp conslder the appijcation submitt^ the Rehabjlitation Action Ptan, m@mb©r1of th©p©tstion@ra^ p©r jand was acquired. With the above obseryatioh^ dispo^ed of. Consequentiy, M.(W.)P.N^ 4934/2005 aiso stand disposed o1 Partles are entitied for cerl chi^?<n41-i HTTOV ^* te1%1' ^POTC ^3Tf^q'3TT^T icy on reservatjon". Ciauses 3.1-1 & 3<1.2 \s have not compieteiy denied the prayer repty is that they wiil consider the to Cbu^e^ 3 A 3*1 of the Rehabilitation of and eijgibility of the empioyment. petitionar is r^quir^d to make an of his family members along with his ^spondent NoJ, and re^pondent NoJ shaJI '^d by the petitjoner, In aecordance wjth try to giye empiQyment to the famijy |-h©promi^s givsn to th©knd own@r whog© and dlrection^, the writ petitjon ^tand^ 3.2024/2005, I.A.NOS.62Q7/2003 and ahd ifled copy of this order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (^y^) ^