- (1.) Ashok Kumar and Kali Ram have filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing two orders, both dated 30.09.2010 (Annexures P-6 and P-7), whereby claim of the petitioners for appointment in lieu of their acquired land has been rejected.
(2.) Petitioners' case is that their land was acquired for construction of Panipat Thermal Power Project, which framed policy dated 06.05.1984 and 07.04.1992 to provide employment to at least one member of the family, whose land was acquired for the said project. Father of petitioner no.1 and also petitioner no.2 himself made applications in June 1985 for employment under the said policy. They also filed C. W. P. No. 1700 of 1996 titled Rajinder Singh and others vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and others. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.08.2010 directing the respondents to decide the petitioners' representations. Accordingly, petitioners' representations have been decided and rejected vide impugned orders Annexures P-6 and P-7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that father of petitioner no.1 had furnished application with complete documents, as depicted by letter Annexure P-10, whereby applications of 16 persons including that of father of petitioner no.1 were forwarded by Additional Chief Engineer to Engineer-in-Chief along with photostat copies of proof of age etc. and list of land owners of the concerned villages. It was thus contended that complete documents had been furnished in May, 1985 itself and therefore, rejection on the ground that the documents were furnished in January 1992 i.e. after cut-off date of 13.12.1991 is illegal and untenable. The contention cannot be accepted. Firstly, Annexure P-10 does not refer to the application of petitioner no.2 at all. Secondly, regarding both petitioners, further documents were sought vide letters dated 28.06.1985 and 26.06.1985, but the petitioners failed to furnish the said documents, which were presented in January 1992 only i.e. after the cut-off date of 13.12.1991, as mentioned in the impugned orders. Consequently, there is no illegality in the impugned orders rejecting the claim of the petitioners. For the reasons aforesaid, there is no merit in the instant writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.;