Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 399 (HP)

SUBHASH CHAND v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-05-07

DEV DARSHAN SUD, DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2013
JUDGMENT DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, J. 1. IN this writ petition, following relief has been claimed: "a) Writ of mandamus may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to provide employment under Resettlement and Rehabilitation Plan Scheme (Annexure P-2) to the petitioner who belongs to project affected family of Parbati Hydro Electric Project. 2. ON the previous date, following order came to be passed in this writ petition: "Time sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner to ascertain whether the writ petition could be disposed of in the light of the judgment, dated 31st December, 2012, passed in CWP No.2529 of 2012, titled Kala Devi versus State of H.P. and others, and the judgment, dated 20.3.2013 of the Division Bench of this Court passed in CWP No.8706 of 2012, titled Dehar Singh versus State of H.P. and others." When this case was taken up for further consideration, learned counsel on both sides represented that the issue in this writ petition is identical to that in CWP No.2529/2012, titled Smt. Kala Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 31.12.2012. Also that the issue involved in Writ Petition bearing No.8706/2012, titled Dehar Singh Vs. State of H.P. and others, decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 20.3.2013 while placing reliance on the judgment rendered in Kala Devi's case supra, was also identical in nature. 3. IT is seen that the facts of this case are identical to that of the case of Kala Devi and Dehar Singh supra. In the judgment rendered in Kala Devi's case, it is held as under: "It is seen that respondent No.3-Corporation is alive to its commitment of providing employment to one of the eligible members of the families rendered landless on account of acquisition of land for construction of Parbati Hydro Electric Project, in District Kullu. No recruitment in the category of skilled/semi- skilled/unskilled seems to have yet taken place. The respondent-Corporation has undertaken that as and when the recruitment in these categories is made, preference shall be given to the eligible members of such families, rendered landless. The representation submitted by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent is still pending consideration. No recruitment in the category of skilled/semi- skilled/unskilled seems to have yet taken place. The respondent-Corporation has undertaken that as and when the recruitment in these categories is made, preference shall be given to the eligible members of such families, rendered landless. The representation submitted by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent is still pending consideration. In such a situation, there is no need to enter into the controversy in this writ petition on merits and this petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner and to respondent No.3-Corporation to consider his claim for providing employment, in accordance with the Scheme, as it is legitimately expected from the said respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment as and when the recruitment is made in the near future." 4. THE petitioner in this writ petition being similarly placed is also entitled to the grant of the same relief as granted in the case cited supra. We direct accordingly. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.