B.K. Taimni, Member—Respondents in these three revision petitions were the complainants before the District Forum, where they had filed three separate complaints alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, Rehabilitation Directorate, Tehari Dam, Tehari, Uttaranchal.

2. Undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant in each of the complaints were residing in Tehari Town, albeit, as Government servants. In the wake of construction of Tehari Dam, a Rehabilitation-policy was formulated in 1986 wherein policy was outlined to rehabilitate the people residing in the area coming under submergence or being affected by the construction of dam. Under this scheme the people living in the township of Tehari were having given plots at concessional rates in the areas indicated in the scheme. It was the case of the complainants that they had applied for allotment of house sites at the alternative sites on the ground that they were Government servants, who were not eligible under the rehabilitation policy. It is in these circumstances, three separate complaints were filed before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

Revision Petition No. 2252 of 2005

3. In this case, the complaint filed by the complainant Smt. Shakha Kathait, was allowed and the petitioner was directed to allot a plot of 150 sq. mtr to the respondent along with cost of Rs. 500. Aggrieved/dissatisfied by this order, both the parties filed appeals before the State Commission, which were dismissed.

Revision Petition Nos. 2253 and 2254 of 2005

4. The District Forum after hearing the parties, by a majority judgment, directed the petitioner to refund Rs.750 to the complainants along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of registration along with compensation of Rs.1,000. Aggrieved by this order, both the respondents filed separate appeals before the State Commission, which were allowed and the petitioner was directed to allot 150 sq. mtr. plots to the respondents/complainants within a month and a cost of Rs. 1,000 in each of the case, was also awarded.

5. Aggrieved by the order(s) of the State Commission, the petitioner has filed these three revision petitions.

6. Since the point of law involved is the same, in all these three revision petitions, we go on to dispose them off by a single common order.

7. We heard the learned counsel for both the parties at considerable length and perused the material on record. There is no disputing the fact that as per material on record, the first rehabilitation policy with regard to ‘Tehari-Dam-Project’ was issued on 15.3.86. It is also not in dispute that the respondents/complainants made an application for allotment within the stipulated period. But no plot was allotted to them. It is also on record that the petitioner came up with another rehabilitation policy in Oct., 1995,now, under the caption “Tata Hydro Development Corporation Limited (a joint venture of Government of India and the then Government of U.P., now Government of Uttaranchal). It is also not in dispute that the subsequent to this another rehabilitation policy was issued in December 1998. It is also not in dispute that the cases of the respondents/complainants were not considered by the petitioner for allotment of residential plots and on the alternative site, on the ground that they were ‘tenants’ as also Government servants. According to petitioner, this category of people was not covered under the Rehabilitation policy.

8. We have very carefully gone through all these three rehabilitation policies and find that, in the original scheme of 1986, there .is no mention about disqualifying/or ousting Government servant, from applying for the plot. This ineligibility clause for the first time finds a reference in the policy of 1995.

9. It is quite clear from the perusal of the rehabilitation scheme of 1995 and December 1998, that at no time, it deals with the fate of the applicants or people, who had a