Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Sanjay Harkauli, JJ. - - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Puneet Chandra, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.
(2.) This appeal questions the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.9.2015 on the sole ground that the learned Single Judge has proceeded to incorrectly dismiss the writ petition on the strength of the ratio of the Full Bench decision in the case of Ravindra Kumar v. District Magistrate, Agra and others [(2005) 1 UPLBEC 118 ]. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Full Bench decision in the case of Ravindra Kumar (supra) proceeded on the assumption that the Government Order which made a provision for employment on acquisition of land did not have any statutory force or authority and would run counter to the provision of the Land Acquisition Act and other Rules framed thereunder. Thus, it was the absence of any statutory authority of extending such benefit of employment that was found to be unsupportable in law and even otherwise not being a matter of enforcement of any legal duty cast on the State. The Government Order was further held to be violative of the Land Acquisition Act as well as Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The judgment also went on further to discuss an illustration in paragraphs 22 and 23 of judgment to hold such a Government Order to be contrary to law. Consequently, the claim of employment on the basis of acquisition of land was found to be unacceptable.
(3.) In the instant case, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that there is a clear distinction between the ratio of the aforesaid Full Bench decision and the present case, inasmuch as the respondents in exercise of powers under Article 79 (c) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 framed the U.P. State Electricity Board (Appointment of Members of Families affected by acquisition of land) (First Amendment) Regulations, 1994 and by virtue of such Regulations, an authority was conferred on the Electricity Board and it's authorities to extend the benefit of appointment. It is for this reason that the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, being Writ Petition No. 967 (SS) of 2000 was disposed of to consider the said claim of the petitioner.;