IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-28411-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 08.12.2025 Karamvir ... Petitioner Vs.

Haryana Power General Corporation Limited and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. B.K. Bagri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for the respondents.

*******

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of the letter/memo dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure P-15), vide which representation dated 25.03.2025 (Annexure P-13) submitted by the petitioner for grant of service benefits/deemed date of appointment from the year 2014 was rejected and further to direct the respondents to grant the benefit of deemed date of appointment from the year 2014 along with all the consequential benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that admittedly, the land owned by the family of the petitioner was acquired by Arawali Power Company Private Limited for setting up a Thermal Power Project in District Jhajjar in the year 2007. Subsequently, the Government of Haryana notified the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy dated 09.11.2010 (for short ‘policy’), as discernible from Annexure P-1. The said policy was widely published with an aim to provide employment to one member of each family, from whom more than 02 acres of land was acquired for the aforesaid project. Further, since the petitioner was fully eligible for appointment in terms of the policy (Annexure P-1), vide letter/memo dated 02.06.2014 (Annexure P-3), the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Jhajjar forwarded his case for grant of employment to respondent No.3. It is further contended that vide memo dated 18.06.2015 (Annexure P-4), name of the petitioner was confirmed in the list of 23 applicants in addition to the list of 293 land oustees.

3. Initially, petitioner’s claim was rejected without assigning any reasons. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition i.e. CWP-20274-2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 08.08.2023 (Annexure P-11) with a direction to the respondents to examine his eligibility for the employment opportunity in terms of the policy (Annexure P-1). In compliance thereof, on 19.03.2025 (Annexure P-12), the respondents issued an offer of appointment to the petitioner for the post of Peon (Field). The petitioner joined duty on the said post immediately. Thereafter, on 25.03.2025 (Annexure P-13), he made a representation to respondent No.1 seeking deemed date of appointment from the year 2014, at par with his identically circumstanced counterparts, in terms of the appointment letters issued to them (Annexures P-16 to P-24, respectively). However, the representation dated 25.03.2025 (Annexure P-13) was rejected vide impugned letter/memo dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure P-15) stating that it was “not found feasible for acceptance”.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the written statement filed on behalf of all the respondents-Corporation and submits that a different yardstick has been adopted to assess the case of the petitioner. It was stated therein that the date of appointment of other land oustees was deemed to be from the date of recommendation of their cases because their individual share in the acquired land was 02 acres or more, however, the individual share of each member of the family of the petitioner was found to be less than 02 acres. Once the petitioner has been found entitled to employment and has been offered appointment, he cannot be denied the same deemed date of appointment, as granted to other similarly situated persons. As such, the impugned letter/memo (Annexure P-15) has been issued without recording any plausible reason making it arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

5. Per contra, learned cou