“ 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/1063982

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/1063982
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

.....application of the petitioner had not been moved for providing employment in lieu of acquisition of land on or before 13.12.1991 i.e.cut off date. in view of the fact that land owner i.e.father of sh. phool kumar petitioner/ petitioner himself 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.” this court has held in cwp no.8670 of 2013, which reads as follows:- “in view of no enforceable statutory legal right available to the cwp 871.o”2. 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.” i have considered the claim of the petitioner ashok kumar and i am of the opinion that the claim of his father and his brother, phool kumar has already been considered. the petitioner has filed this petition for the firs.time before this court claiming that his brother phool kumar had relinquished his right in his favour, to be considered for employment he having become over age for job. the petitioner cannot no.at this belated stage step into the shoes of his brother phool kumar or father laxman for compassionate appointment. no ground is made out for issuing any directions to the respondents. dismissed 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 Ashok Kumar .petitioner vs Md.HPGCL and ors ..respondent Present Mr.Ravinder Hooda, Advocate.

M.M.S.BEDI,J.

The claim of one Phool Kumar, elder brother of the petitioner for compassionate employment pursuant to Policy decision dated 7.4.1992 to provide employment to the land owneRs.whose land had bee acquired against the vacancies of Meter Readers in case of Matriculation and Daily Wagers in case of under Matriculate or Illiterate, has been rejected by the Chief Engineer on 7.2.2012 (Annexure P-10) by observing as under :- “ not coming to the case of the petitioner, it is a matter of record that Shri Laxman applied for employment for his son named Sh.

Phool Kumar ( petitioner) on 10.7.1992.

The application of the petitioner had not been moved for providing employment in lieu of acquisition of land on or before 13.12.1991 i.e.cut off date.

In view of the fact that land owner i.e.father of Sh.

Phool Kumar petitioner/ petitioner himself 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.”

This court has held in CWP No.8670 of 2013, which reads as follows:- “In view of no enforceable statutory legal right available to the CWP 871.o”

2. 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.”

I have considered the claim of the petitioner Ashok Kumar and I am of the opinion that the claim of his father and his brother, Phool Kumar has already been considered.

The petitioner has filed this petition for the fiRs.time before this court claiming that his brother Phool Kumar had relinquished his right in his favour, to be considered for employment he having become over age for job.

The petitioner cannot No.at this belated stage step into the shoes of his brother Phool Kumar or father Laxman for compassionate appointment.

No ground is made out for issuing any directions to the respondents.

Dismissed 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