JUDGMENT : [Sushil Kukreja, J.] 1. The instant Letters Patent Appeal lays challenge to order dated 12.07.2016, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 4971 of 2012, titled as National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. vs Karam Chand & Others, whereby this Court while dismissing the aforesaid writ petition directed the petitioner-Corporation to provide suitable employment to respondent No.1 Karam Chand (since deceased) or his family member in terms of the recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba, by clarifying that respondent No.1 (since deceased) or his family member would be entitled to appointment/employment, as per the requirement of the petitioner-Corporation and respondent No.1 (since deceased) shall have no right to claim employment, if any, on the basis of his qualification. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the petitioner-Corporation (appellant herein) filed a Civil Writ Petition bearing CWP No.4971 of 2012, challenging the order dated 26.11.2011, (Annexure P3), passed by Deputy Commissioner, Chamba, whereby the petitioner-Corporation was directed to grant employment to respondent No.1 Karam Chand (since deceased) or his family member. 3. The background of the case is that earlier the respondent No.1 Karam Chand (since deceased) filed a Civil Writ Petition No.2714 of 2011, stating therein that he and his wife were owners in possession of the land and a house thereupon and land measuring 12 Biswances alongwith the house constructed thereupon was acquired for the purpose of construction of Chamera Hydro Electric Power Project Stage-II in District Chamba and due to acquisition of the land and house, respondent No. 1 (since deceased) had become houseless and as such, he was entitled to be given employment either to himself or one of his family members in accordance with the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme, which was formulated to protect the interest of the oustees affected owing to acquisition of land for construction of the aforesaid project. Since respondent No.1(since deceased) had become houseless after acquisition of his land and house, the petitioner-Corporation is/was under obligation to provide employment to him or to one of the members of his family, therefore, respondent No.1, (since deceased) filed representation before the authorities concerned for employment, but despite repeated representations, no relief, whatsoever, was granted to him and as such, he was compelled to file the aforesaid writ petition bearing CWP No. 2714 of 2011 and vide judgment dated 02.05.2011, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in aforesaid writ petition, the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba, was directed to decide the pending representation of respondent No.1 and take decision in accordance with law within one month from the date of production of copy of judgment. Pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by this Court, Deputy Commissioner, Chamba, vide order dated 26.11.2011, passed a detailed order, whereby the case of respondent No.1(since deceased) for employment in the petitioner-Corporation was recommended. Vide aforesaid impugned order dated 26.11.2011, the petitioner-Corporation was also directed to consider the case of respondent No.1 (since deceased) and to provide a suitable job to one of his family members. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, petitioner-Corporation approached this Court by way of filling of the present writ petition bearing CWP No. 4971 of 2012, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.07.2016 wherein the petitioner-Corporation was directed to provide suitable employment to respondent No.1 (since deceased) or his family member in terms of the recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner. It was further directed that respondent No.1 or his family member would be entitled to appointment/ employment as per requirement of the petitioner-Corporation and respondent No.1(since deceased) shall have no right to claim employment, if any, on the basis of his qualification. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment dated 12.07.2016, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 4971 of 2012, titled as National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. vs Karam Chand & others, the appellant has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record carefully. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant first contended that deceased respondent No.1 was given adequate compensation for acquisition of his land and house as such neither the respondent No.1 nor any of his family member was entitled to the employment. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record carefully. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant first contended that deceased respondent No.1 was given adequate compensation for acquisition of his land and house as such neither the respondent No.1 nor any of his family member was entitled to the employment. However, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of any force as the perusal of Annexure P4 filed along with the writ petition reveals that land of deceased respondent No.1 measuring 000012 Bighas along with one shop and house, was acquired by the appellant at the time of the construction of the project and he along with his wife received an amount of Rs. 12,71,396/- on account of compensation and an amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- (Rs.80,000+ Rs.35000) under the head of additional grants. It is not disputed that the State of H.P. had framed Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme to settle the oustees affected on account of acquisition of their land for the construction of Chamera Hydro Electric Project Stage-II in Chamba District. Clause 2(i) of the aforesaid Scheme defines the term ‘oustees’ or ‘affected family’, which is being reproduced as under: “(2) In this Scheme unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context: (i) Oustees or affected family means a land owner who has been deprived of his/her land, house or both on account of acquisition of his/her land for Chamera Hydro Electric Project Stage-II, Karian and is entitled to compensation in lieu thereof and includes his/her successors in interest.” 7. Part-III of the Scheme pertains to employment. The relevant portion of the said Scheme is reproduced herein as under: “EMPLOYMENT: One member of each affected family shall be eligible for employment in Chamera Hydro Electric Project, Stage-II Karian, in the following manner: (i) One member of each affected family who is absolute owner of land or house or both, whether male or female, as per entries of the revenue record and entered as separate family in the Panchayat Parivar register as on the date of notification of Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894……... (vi) PROVIDED FURTHER THAT No member of a family whose total land acquired is 1 Biswa or less, married daughter or heirs of predeceased married daughter who are recorded as co-owners in the revenue record with their brothers, sisters or parents shall be eligible for employment in the project provided they become landless or houses less. It is assumed that married daughter is already settled in the family of her husband and she is not to be rehabilitated by way of employment. (vii) No member of affected family shall be eligible for employment if quantum of his acquired land is one Biswa or less.” 8. Thus in terms of the aforesaid provisions of the Scheme, no member of a family whose total land acquired is 1 Biswa or less is entitled to employment unless he had become landless or houseless. However, in the instant case, as observed earlier, as per Annexure P4, 000012 Bighas of land along with shop and house of deceased respondent No.1 had been acquired. It was the specific case of the deceased respondent No.1 Karam Chand that after the acquisition of his land and house, he became houseless and landless and as such, he became entitled to the employment in terms of the Scheme. The appellant corporation had failed to produce any material suggestive of the fact that the deceased respondent had not become landless and houseless after acquisition of his land, rather perusal of the impugned order dated 26.11.2011 (Annexure P3) passed by learned Deputy Commissioner reveals that respondent No.1 had become houseless and landless after acquisition of his land and in this respect, para 12 of the impugned order is reproduced as under: 12. After going through the record of relief and rehabilitation office, R & R Scheme issued by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) HP and after bearing both parties and their counsels, I am of the considered view that when the land was acquired that the petitioner was owner in possession of the land alongwith other co-sharers who constitute a separate family of land comprised in Khata No. 193 Khatauni No.206, Khasra No. Kita 13 land measuring 1119 Bigha to the extent of 16/956 measuring 12 Biswansi alongwith the house constructed over the land. Therefore, he has become houseless and landless after the acquisition of the aforesaid land. Therefore, he has become houseless and landless after the acquisition of the aforesaid land. Therefore, Part-III of the rehabilitation scheme clause VI specifically provides that employment to the one member of the family of the petitioner has to be provided, if he becomes houseless and landless. Hence, the present petition is allowed and the case of the petitioner is recommended for employment to respondent No.3. It is hereby ordered that respondent No.3 (NHPC Authority through its General Manager) Chamera-II will consider the case of petitioner and will provide suitable job in the project to the one of the family member of the petitioner” 9. Since, learned Deputy Commissioner had specifically passed the order that respondent No.1 had become houseless and landless after acquisition of his land, therefore, in terms of Clause-VI of Part-III of the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme, employment to one member of the family of respondent No.1 was to be provided, as such, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that deceased respondent No.1 or his family member was not entitled to the employment is totally misconceived and it cannot be accepted. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that during the course of the time, it was felt that the appellant-corporation shall not require more number of employees as the project has already been commissioned in the year 2004 and the corporation has surplus manpower in workmen category as such in the meeting held on 18.11.2002, it was decided to extend financial package in lieu of employment to the affected families of the project. However, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that though in the meeting held on 18.11.2002, the decision was taken to provide alternative financial package in lieu of employment to the effected families of the project, however, there is no document on record to suggest that the aforesaid decision was made public at any point of time and rather the documents available on record suggest that even after passing of this order, the appellant-corporation had offered employment to various persons pursuant to the recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner till October, 2006, meaning thereby that the decision taken in its meeting held on 18.11.2002, was never given effect to by the appellant-corporation. From the perusal of the supplementary affidavit filed by the appellant, it is clear that the appellant-corporation had been providing employment to the oustees on the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner till the year 2006 by way of offering employment in terms of the Scheme. Although in para4 of the supplementary affidavit, it has been stated by the corporation that none of the list approved and forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner recommended the name of respondent No.1 or any member of his family for employment and as such, there was no occasion for the petitioner to consider respondent No.1 or his family member for suitable employment. But now vide impugned order dated 26.11.2011, Deputy Commissioner has recommended the name of respondent No.1 for employment as such the appellant-corporation is duty bound to provide employment to one of the family member of the respondent No.1 in view of the Scheme. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to gauge the real intention of deceased respondent No.1, as he did not approach the appellant and the concerned authorities for nine years and waited until his son became eligible for employment, as he was only 16 years old in the year 2001 when the land was acquired. However, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves to be rejected as admittedly, the land of respondent No.1 was acquired in the year 2001 along with his house. Thereafter, deceased respondent No.1 had been pursuing his cause to provide employment either to him or any member of his family as per Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme. To ascertain as to whether petitioner had become landless and houselss, the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba issued a letter dated 21.09.2002, addressed to Tehsildar, Chamba who submitted his report in which, it was clearly stated that the house and shop of respondent No.1 and his wife was acquired and they didn’t have any house to live in. Thereafter, respondent No.1 had made numerous representations to the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba for settlement of his claim for providing employment to one member of his family, however, his name was never recommended for providing employment and thereafter he was constrained to file a writ petition bearing CWP No.2714 of 2011, titled as Karam Chand vs. State of H.P. & Ors. before this Court with the prayer that his son Mr. before this Court with the prayer that his son Mr. Narinder Kumar, who is a qualified Software Engineer may be provided employment in the project as per his educational qualification and thereafter, the aforesaid writ petition was decided by this Court on 02.05.2011 directing the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba to look into the matter and take decision in accordance with law. On the aforesaid direction, Deputy Commissioner had passed impugned order dated 26.11.2011, wherein the case of respondent No.1 was recommended for employment to the appellant, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that deceased respondent No.1 did not approach the appellant and the concerned authorities for nine years and waited until his son became eligible for employment is misconceived. 12. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the opinion that learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-corporation by directing it to provide suitable employment either to respondent No.1 or his family member in terms of the recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba. 13. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.