IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No.56 of 2025 Decided on: 20.05.2025 National Hydro-Electric Power Corporation Limited & Another ......Appellants Versus Priyesh Kaistha & Others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.2 to 4/State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) In the present appeal consideration is sought of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, wherein, CWP No.6714 of 2022 was allowed on 14.11.2024 and the directions were issued to the present appellants to offer appointment to the writ petitioner in terms of the recommendations made by the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, vide communication dated 31.03.2014 (Annexure P-4). 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Learned Single Judge, noticed that the Notification dated 27.04.2006 (Annexure P-2) for Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme/Plan (hereinafter referred to as RRP), was to provide employment to one of the members of project affected family, on account of which the name of the father from the writ petitioners’ family was recommended by the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, vide communication dated 06.05.2013. 3. The case had been put up on 30.07.2013, wherein, the Committee which was dealing with the applications and it was found that the father of the petitioner, namely, Pankaj, had requested that his son (petitioner) may be considered for employment in place of his candidature. The same thus, did not find favour with the Committee who chose at that point of time to recommend 17 persons for employment out of the 18 persons. The relevant part as such of the Committee as such for rejecting the case as such, reads as under:- “Sh. Sesh Ram, S/o Jaisu Ram, (Sr. No.2 above) requested the selection committee to consider the name of the son for employment in place of his candidature. Smt. Kala Devi, Wd/o Jaishu (Sr. No.5 above) requested the selection committee to consider the name of her step-grand-daughter for employment in place of her candidature. Sh. Pankaj, S/o Om Parkash (Sr. No.15 above) requested the selection committee to consider the name of his son for employment in place of his candidature. However the committee informed them that the committee cannot consider the candidature of persons other than the names as received from the District Commissioner, Kullu vide No.321/DRA dated 06.05.13. The record and other details were also examined by the committee. Based on the above, it is recommended that above 17 no. persons may be appointed as per details given below.” 4. The Deputy Commissioner thereafter recommended the case of the petitioner on 31.03.2014 (Annexure P-4) in place of his father for employment in the RRP and requested to provide employment to the eligible persons at the earliest, but no action apparently was taken on the said recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, a Livelihood Scheme, came into force on 05.08.2015 (Annexure R-3/3) and the name of the land owner was then again forwarded on 24.08.2015 (Annexure R-3/4) by the Deputy Commissioner. Keeping in view the quantum of land, left with the land owner, a sum of Rs.2,50,733/- as a bailout, was given from July 2015 to March 2018, which was pursuant to the meeting held in July, 2015. This would be clear from the communication dated 05.01.2022 (Annexure P-7), which was, thus, challenged before learned Single Judge on the ground that the employment should have been given instead of the financial benefits. 6. Learned counsel for the Corporation had raised the issue of delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioner, after the year 2014 when the Deputy Commissioner had recommended his name in the alternative on the basis of which, we had issued the notice. 7. It was the case of the official Corporation that the writ writ petitioner/respondent herein, after 31.03.2014 had taken no action for a period of 8 years and, therefore, once the Policy of Rehabilitation stood superseded by the Policy of Compensation, learned Single Judge was not correct in granting the said relief. 8. It has now been brought to our notice that there was a specific averment as such in the writ petition that on 31.03.2014, the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, had asked the present appellants as such to provide employment to the petitioner at the earliest in place of his father and no heed was paid in this regard and that various communications were sent by the petitioner thereafter to the respondents regarding the grant of employment. 9. Today, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has also brought to our notice two communications, which were addressed to the appellants as such and received under the Right to Information Act, whereby, on 15.02.2019 and 25.01.2021, the petitioner had represented that he was unemployed and as much as six years had gone by, since his application had been pending consideration for employment. The vernacular of the said documents are taken on record as Mark-A & Mark-B. 10. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the argument as has been raised on the issue of delay, has been explained as such by the writ petitioner. It is also not disputed that the Deputy Commissioner had written on 31.03.2014 after the Committee had rejected the case of the petitioner’s father for his consideration on an untenable ground as such. Apparently, at that point of time, the father of the petitioner would have preferred that the son had a longer tenure to serve and, therefore, had opted for the employment of his son, rather than taking up the employment by him. The purpose as such is only to provide succor to the family, whose land has been compulsorily acquired, and, therefore, once the Deputy Commissioner had recommended the name of the petitioner in the alternative and the appellants failed to consider it, we are of the considered opinion that the delay as such was never on account of the writ petitioner, as noticed that even thereafter in 2019 and 2021, the requisite communications (Mark-A & Mark-B) had been made. 11. Learned Single Judge, has kept these aspects in mind, while allowing the writ petition and by noticing that the subsequent decision as such to provide the Livelihood Scheme on 05.08.2015 as such would not adversely affect the case of the writ petitioner, whose cause of action was still alive on account of the letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, dated 31.03.2014, which was never acted upon by the Corporation. 12. Resultantly, keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not erred, in any manner, in allowing the writ petition, since the case of the writ petitioner was always kept alive. It is not the case of the appellant-Corporation itself also that on account of the rejection of the case of the father of the writ petitioner at the initial stage, the matter was closed. The Corporation itself kept on considering the matter and under the new Livelihood Scheme as such offered compensation and, therefore, the matter was still alive, specially keeping in view the fact that the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, himself had recommended the writ petitioner for employment in the alternative. 13. In such circumstances, we do not find any plausible reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by learned Single Judge. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice May 20, 2025 (Ranjan Sharma) (Yashwant) Judge