1 2026:CGHC:10981-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1333 of 2024 Ankit Pandey S/o Shri Surendra Pandey Aged About 32 Years Resident of Ward No. 28, Katiyapara, Bhoi Mohalla, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Managment Department, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 – Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd. (Csphcl), Head O7ce - Daganiya, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Director (Production) Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Madwa, Champa, District - Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - General Manager, (H.R.) Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd. (Csphcl), Head O7ce - Daganiya, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Engineer (H.R.) Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd. (Csphcl), Head O7ce - Daganiya, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Superintending Engineer (Civil) Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd. Madwa, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title Taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No. 2 to 6 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03/03/2026 1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 6. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s): “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the Para 2.1 (c) of the Policy 2007 issued by the respondent no. 1 ultra vires. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be further pleased to quash the impugned letter dated 20/12/2019 (Annexure P/2) issued by the respondent No. 3. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to consider the candidature of petitioner for employment, that too w.e.f. date where other similarly candidates were considered for employment, and with all consequential bene.ts. 10.5 Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed .t and proper in the facts and circumstance of the present case in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, as projected by the petitioner are that the land which was belonging to the petitioner’s maternal grand father, bearing bearing Khasra No. 961/1 (b), total area 1.32 acre situated in village Auraikala 3 (Madwa), District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh was acquired under the 2007, for the purpose of Pipeline installation under the Madwa Electrical Project. The said land was in the name of the maternal grandfather of the petitioner, namely Prahlad Prasad Pandey. After acquisition of the land, the respondent-CSPHCL invited applications for the post of 'Line Attendant' (Contract) from the displaced person(s) whose land were acquired for the Projects of the Company. The petitioner submitted application for grant of employment under the Rehabilitation Policy-2007 for the post of 'Assistant Grade-III/Line Attendant (Contract) on 31.05.2018 with particulars of land which was acquired by respondent No. 2. Thereafter the respondent-CSPHCL vide No. 01-04/PD-3/2595 Raipur, dated 10.10.2018 issued call letter to the petitioner for Physical E7ciency Test for recruitment of the candidate who were aDected by land acquisition for the post of Line Attendant (Contract), in which the Petitioner appeared and successfully cleared the physical test which was held on 16/10/2018. Thereafter the respondent No. 5/Chief Engineer (HR) CSPHCL, Raipur has issued letter to petitioner's maternal grandfather (Prahlad Pandey) asking him to submit land documents. The respondent No. 5 stated in its letter that his 1.11 acre land situated at village Auraikala had been acquired for Madwa-Tendubhata Project. For availing the rehabilitation beneEt, he had to nominate the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 sought documents like B-1, Voter ID of land owner, owner, educational qualiEcation, family tree, caste certiEcate, which were duly been submitted before the respondent No. 5. The petitioner's maternal grand-father also executed an a7davit dated 09.05.2018, stating therein that the land bearing Khasra No. 961/1(a) having area 1.32 acre owned by him in village Auraikala, District Janjgir Champa, has been acquired for the purposes of Madwa Electrical Project and further 4 that the petitioner is his successor, therefore he had no objection nor his family members had any objection if the petitioner is considered for appointment. Therefore the petitioner's claim be considered under the Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 for the land acquired by respondents. 4. Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 3 issued the impugned letter No. 15-1/Rehabilitation/Sec/4171 Madwa dated 20.12.2019, through which the appointment of petitioner under the Rehabilitation Policy was declined being the maternal grand- son of Prahlad Pandey, whose 1.11 acre land has been acquired by the respondents. The respondent No. 3 has stated in its impugned letter that since the nominee, that is the petitioner was the son of his daughter, the petitioner does not fall under the category of family as per the deEnition stated in Para 2.1 (c) of the Model Rehabilitation Policy of the Government of Chhattisgarh, 2007. Therefore, it was not possible to consider the application for employment/appointment of petitioner under rehabilitation scheme. The impugned letter dated 20.12.2019 issued by the 3, declining to provide employment/appointment to the petitioner for the reason that he is the maternal grand son of land owner whose land has been acquired is contrary to their own policy, as the respondents in one case of Suryadeep Tiwari who is also maternal grand-son has been considered for employment under the policy of 2007. In the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner had arrayed the said candidate as respondent in WPS No. 6644/2022 which was later withdrawn on 27.09.2022. 5. Mr. Shukla further submits that in the earlier petition being WPS No. 12/2021, the respondent Department had Eled reply, wherein it was submitted that the respondents therein, in its 60th meeting held on 11.07.2006 decided and adopted the policy prevailing in the State 5 Government for Rehabilitation and Resettlement for upcoming thermal power project of the Board. The policy of the respondent Company by not granting employment to the dependents of maternal side and granting employment to the dependents of only paternal side is ultra vires the Constitution. 6. On the other hand, placing reliance on the return Eled, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent No. 1 / State submits that the present petition as framed and Eled by the petitioner is devoid of merit and substance and accordingly is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The State Government in exercise of power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of India has framed the Chhattisgarh State Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 (as amended) to restore the status and dignity of land oustee whose land has been subjected to acquisition for the projects of Governmental and private institutions in addition to payment of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act and to provide for their shelter and employment also. Clause 1.1.3 of the Policy-2007 is one of the objectives to provide permanent employment. Likewise, clause 1.2.7 of the Policy provides that if 75% of land of the last oustee / Bhumi Swami has been acquired for industrial purpose then as per qualiEcation employment will be provided to one of the members of his/her family. Clause 2 of the Policy deEnes aDected person / aDected family. The deEnition of "aDected family" includes wife or husband, minor children, old parents dependent on the aDected person, widow mother or sister and unmarried daughter. Mr. Shukla further places reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in South East Central Railway & Another v. Yashvant & Others {WP(S) No. 1349/2018, dated 03.04.2018} wherein this Court had rejected the petition Eled by the Railways challenging the order of the 6 learned Central Administrative Tribunal by which the learned Tribunal had directed grant of employment to the grandson in lieu of acquisition of the land of the original land owner. 7. Mr. Thakur next submits that the petitioner being maternal grandson of the aDected person, has no right whatsoever, much less an enforceable right, under the Policy framed the State Government to claim employment as the Policy permits employment to a dependent family member of the aDected person whereas the petitioner is not the dependent family member of the aDected person /grand-father (Nana) of the petitioner as once a daughter is married and leaves for her matrimonial home, she is not treated as dependent on her natural parents, she is treated as dependent on her husband and his family. Since the petitioner is not dependent on the family of land oustee after marriage, the petitioner has rightly been denied employment under the Policy particularly clause no. 2 1(c). On account of his non dependency, the petitioner has been denied employment which is available to a dependent member only. The Policy expressly provides that the wife or husband, minor children, old parents dependent on the aDected person, widow mother or sister and unmarried daughter are the members of the aDected family, but, the maternal grand- son like the petitioner has not been expressly included as member of the aDected family, in other words, he has been impliedly excluded as a member of the aDected family Therefore, the provisions contained in clause no 2.1(c) of the Policy is intra-vires the Constitution and the denial for employment in lieu of the acquisition of the land of his maternal grandfather (Nana) is absolutely just, proper and legal and does not suDer from any illegality or inErmity. 7 8. Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 to 6 submits that though no return has been Eled, however, since the Rehabilitation Policy 2007 has been adopted by the respondent- Company, he would adopt the submissions advanced by the learned State counsel and submit that the petitioner has rightly been denied appointment in lieu of acquisition of the land which originally belonged to the maternal grandfather of the petitioner. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents No. 2 to 6 comes under "Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board" which has been formed in accordance with Section 5 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 as per the NotiEcation published in the gazette of the Government of Chhattisgarh dated 15.11.2000. The Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (CSEB) became functional w.e.f. 01.12.2000. Thereafter, the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board has been reorganized into following Eve companies in accordance with the provisions contained in the Section 131 to 134 of Electricity Act, 2003 by the Government of Chhattisgarh vide NotiEcation dated 19.12.2008. According to Mr.Shukla, the policy decisions of the respondent-Companies are decided, monitored, controlled and supervised and directed by the State Government through the Department of Energy. 11. The core grievance of the petitioner is that he being the maternal grandson of the original land oustee, namely Prahlad Prasad Pandey, has been denied employment by the respondent-Company despite acquisition of the land belonging to his maternal grandfather, Prahlad Prasad Pandey. 8 12. Clause 2.1(x) of the 2007 Policy, which governs the Eeld, deEnes the word ‘aDected family’. The same reads as under: “(x) izHkkfor ifjokj %& izHkkfor ifjokj esas 'kkfey gS dksbZ izHkkfor O;fDr] mldh ifRu ;k ifr rFkk ukckfyx cPps vkSj izHkkfor O;fDr ij vkfJr o`) ekrk&firk] fo/kok eka ;k cgu rFkk vfookfgr iq=hA” 13. From a perusal of the aforesaid deEnition, it is evident that the expression “a2ected family” under Clause 2.1(x) of the 2007 Policy speciEcally includes only the wife or husband, minor children, dependent parents, widowed mother or sister, and unmarried daughter of the aDected person. The Policy does not include relatives from the maternal side within the ambit of the deEnition. The petitioner admittedly is the maternal grandson of the original land owner, namely Prahlad Prasad Pandey. Once a daughter is married, she is ordinarily treated as a member of and dependent upon her husband / matrimonial family, and not upon her parental family. Consequently, the petitioner, being the son of the married daughter of the land oustee, cannot be treated as a dependent member of the aDected family within the meaning of the Policy. In absence of inclusion of maternal descendants within the deEnition clause, this Court cannot expand the scope of the Policy by judicial interpretation so as to incorporate a category which the policy-maker has consciously excluded. The classiEcation made under Clause 2.1(x) cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of constitutional provisions so as to render it ultra vires. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for appointment under the 2007 Policy, vide impugned letter dated 20.12.2019, cannot be termed illegal or arbitrary. The action of the respondents is in consonance with the policy governing the Eeld. 9 14. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision rendered in Yashvant (supra) is wholly misplaced. The said decision turned on its own peculiar facts and circumstances, where the competent authority had either treated the claimant as eligible under the applicable policy framework or the factual matrix regarding dependency and recognition under the scheme was materially diDerent. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Bablu / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.03.03 18:05:26 +0530