O R D E R

The case of the petitioner is that land owned and possessed by him in Mohal Majhgaon, Kh. No. 130/359/361 measuring 0-12-81 Hect., Mohal Kotla, Khata No. 52/119 measuring 0-03-800 total measuring 0-16-61 Hect. situated in Teshil Rampur, District Shimla, H.P. was acquired by respondent No. 1 in the year

1989-1990 for construction of a Hydro Electric Power Project. Petitioner was declared landless. Compensation in lieu of acquisition of the land was paid to him because of acquisition of his land. Respondent No. 1 formulated a Scheme for rehabilitation and resettlement of persons displaced on account of construction of its Hydro Electric Power Project. Various benefits were admissible to the persons falling within the perview of this Scheme. Petitioner is also covered under the rehabilitation and resettlement scheme. He is also entitled to the benefits under the Scheme. There was a provision under the Scheme for allotment of land as well as suitable employment for one member of each displaced family according to person’s capability and qualification subject to availability of vacancies with the respondent. Prayer of the petitioner is that though he is also entitled for employment in terms of the Policy but the respondent No. 1 has not provided him the employment.

2. The case of contesting respondent No. 1 is that on account of increase in the number of landless families, the respondent was able to provide regular employment to sixty one landless families as per availability of posts and suitability of eligible candidates. That keeping in view the overwhelming demand of the landless families, an alternative package Scheme was approved, wherein the landless families were offered a grant of Rs. 2-3 lacs as per eligibility in lieu of employment. The petitioner had accepted the alternative package and executed an agreement in this regard with respondent No. 1 on 5.11.2005. In terms of this agreement, an additional financial package of Rs. three lacs in lieu of employment had been provided to and accepted by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner’s present claim of employment is not only hit by the agreement executed between the parties, but suffers from delay, laches and estoppal. Various other contentions were also raised.

Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the factum of petitioner’s executing the agreement dated 5.11.2005 and accepting additional financial package of Rs. three lacs in lieu of employment.

3. Our attention has also been drawn to a judgment passed by coordinate Bench of this Court on 5.8.2019 in CWP No. 2759 of 2019, titled Diwan Singh & others versus Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. & others. The said writ petition was filed by certain individuals against respondent No. 1 with prayers somewhat similar to the prayers made in the present writ petition. While dismissing the writ petition, the Court observed that the petitioners therein had accepted monetary compensation in lieu of employment under the agreements entered into way back. The agreements were not simple agreements taking away the rights of the parties to go to the Court. Under the agreements, the petitioners had taken lump sum compensation in lieu of employment. Therefore, it was their right to seek employment which was taken away by the agreements. The Court also observed that it would be too late in the day for the petitioners to make the offer for returning the money received by them. The agreements were not challenged by them at the relevant time. The relevant paras from the judgment are as under:

“9. At the outset, it should be pointed out that the petitioners have accepted the monetary compensation, in lieu of employment, under agreements entered into way back in the year 2006. Since the agreements are in printed format and since the agreements contain a Clause prohibiting the petitioners from approaching Courts, it is sought to be contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the agreements are void in view of Section