“ Now Coming to the Case of the Petitioner It Is a Matter of Vs. Unknown

“ Now Coming to the Case of the Petitioner It Is a Matter of vs Unknown

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Jul 22, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1063965

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1063965
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Jul 22, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

“ Now Coming to the Case of the Petitioner It Is a Matter of

Respondent

Unknown

Excerpt

.....had never applied for employment for himself except through this petition. the petitioner has mentioned in the application dated 2006(anexure p-9 attached with the writ petition) that he was minot at that time. there was no provision in the policy to keep reserve the post for providing employment for minot till the date of majority. in view of the fact that shri rohtas had not applied for providing employment on or before the cut off date 13.12.1991 and at this belated stage when the policy is no longer in vogue, the claim of the petitioner is not feasible of acceptance.” cwp 871.o”2. in view of the fact that the petitioner had not applied for employment and that there is no provision in the policy to keep reserve the post for providing employment for minot till the date of majority, the chief engineer has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. besides this, the compassionate appointment to the post of meter reader or daily wager for matriculate/ under matriculate, respectively, cannot be claimed as an enforceable right after an inordinate delay. besides this, the petition deserves to be dismissed in view of the observations of this court in cwp no.8670 of 2013, which reads as follows:- “ in view of no enforceable statutory legal right available to the petitioner to invoke the provisions of article 14 or 16 of the constitution of india, i do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. besides this, this court is of the opinion that the appointment sought for is not a public appointment but was in the shape of additional bonus to the acquisition. the writ petition is dismissed. “ in view of the above circumstances, this petition is dismissed as there is neither any statutory enforceable right vested in the petitioner not there has been any violation of article 14 or 16 of the constitution of india. july 22 ,2013 ( m.m.s.bedi ) tsm judge

Full Judgment

CWP 871.o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

CWP 871.of 2013 Date of decision:

22. 7.2013 Rohtash .petitioner vs M.D.HPGCL and ors ..respondent Present Mr.Ravinder Hooda, Advocate M.M.S.BEDI,J.

Aggrieved by order dated 30.4.2012 (Annexure P-7).rejecting the claim of the petitioner for employment in view of the land acquired for setting up Thermal Plant at Panipat as per Policy of the Govt.

dated 6.5.1985/7.4.1992, the petitioner has approached this court.

Pursuant to the directions of this court in COCP 236 of 2010 dated 23.1.2012, requiring the respondents to consider the claim of each of the petitioner separately after calling individual information, the Chief Engineer has passed the following order:- “ not coming to the case of the petitioner, it is a matter of record that Shri Rohtas had never applied for employment for himself except through this petition.

The petitioner has mentioned in the application dated 2006(Anexure P-9 attached with the writ petition) that he was minot at that time.

There was no provision in the policy to keep reserve the post for providing employment for minot till the date of majority.

In view of the fact that Shri Rohtas had not applied for providing employment on or before the cut off date 13.12.1991 and at this belated stage when the policy is no longer in vogue, the claim of the petitioner is not feasible of acceptance.”

CWP 871.o”

2. In view of the fact that the petitioner had not applied for employment and that there is no provision in the Policy to keep reserve the post for providing employment for minot till the date of majority, the Chief Engineer has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner.

Besides this, the compassionate appointment to the post of Meter Reader or Daily Wager for Matriculate/ under Matriculate, respectively, cannot be claimed as an enforceable right after an inordinate delay.

Besides this, the petition deserves to be dismissed in view of the observations of this court in CWP No.8670 of 2013, which reads as follows:- “ In view of no enforceable statutory legal right available to the petitioner to invoke the provisions of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order.

Besides this, this court is of the opinion that the appointment sought for is not a public appointment but was in the shape of additional bonus to the acquisition.

The writ petition is dismissed.

“ In view of the above circumstances, this petition is dismissed as there is neither any statutory enforceable right vested in the petitioner not there has been any violation of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India.

July 22 ,2013 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2013 Same Parties “ Now Coming to the Case of the Petitioner It Is a Matter o... Same Subject Land Acquisition