Chattisgarh High Court
Ram Kumar Kaiwartya vs National Thermal Power Corporation … on 20 June, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by 2025:CGHC:26312
RAMESH
KUMAR VATTI NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5531 of 2017
1 - Sundarlal S/o Late Baijarauram Aged About 43 Years R/o Village
Lakhram, Post Lakhram, Police Station Ratanpur, Tahsil Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Rameshwari D/o Kholbahara, W/o Sundarlal Aged About 33 Years R/o
Village Khatola, Post Bargawan, Police Station Akaltara, Tahsil Akaltara,
District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioners
Versus
1 - National Thermal Power Corporation Limited Through Its Chairman-Cum-
Managing Director, Post Office- Ujwal Nagar, Seepat, Police Station Seepat,
Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 495555
2 - Manager, Human Resources Department, National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited, Post Office Ujwal Nagar, Seepat, Police Station Seepat,
Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 495555
3 - National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Through Its Chief Managing
Director, Scope Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi,
110003
4 - Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
And
WPS No. 5525 of 2017
1 – Ram Kumar Kaiwartya S/o Pakla Kaiwartya, Aged About 50 Years R/o
Village Nirtu, Post Ghutku, Police Station Koni, Tahsil Takhatpur, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – National Thermal Power Corporation Limited Through Its Chairman Cum
Managing Director, Post Office Ujwal Nagar, Seepat, Police Station Seepat,
Tahsil Masturi, District Blaspur, Chhattisgarh 495555
2
2 – Manager, Human Resources Department National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited, Post Office Ujwal Nagar, Seepat, Police Station Seepat,
Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495555
3 – National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Through Its Chief Managing
Director, Scope Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
110003
4 – Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
— Respondents
And
WPS No. 5529 of 2017
1 – Krishna Kumar S/o Kholbahara Ram, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village
Sipat, Post Janji, Police Station Sipat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – National Thermal Power Corporation Limited Through Its Chairman-Cum-
Managing Director, Post Office Ujwal Nager, Seepat, Police Station Seepat,
Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495555
2 – Manager, Human Resources Department National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited, National Thermal Power Corporation, Post Office Ujwal
Nagar, Seepat, Police Station Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh 495555
3 – National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, . Through Its Chief
Managing Director, Scope Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Raod, New
Delhi-110003
4 – Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
— Respondents
And
WPS No. 5530 of 2017
1 – Dayanidhi Kaiwartya S/o Teejram Kaiwartya Aged About 45 Years R/o
Village Nirtu, Post Ghutku, Police Station Koni, Tahsil- Takhatpur, District-
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – National Thermal Power Corporation Limited Through Its Chairman-Cum-
Managing Director, Post Office Ujwal Nagar, Seepat, Police Station Seepat,
Tahsil Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495555
2 – Manager, Human Resources Department National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited, Post Office Ujwal Nagar, Seepat, Police Station Seepat,
Tahsil Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495555
3 – National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Through Its Chief Managing
Director, Scope Complex, 7 Institutional Area, Lodhi Raod, New Delhi-
110003
3
4 – Collector, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
— Respondents
And
WPS No. 5593 of 2017
1 – Laxman Prasad S/o Kholbahara Ram Aged About 37 Years R/o Village
Janji, Post Janji, Police Station Sipat, Tahsil Sipat, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – National Thermal Power Corporation Limited Through Its Chairman-Cum-
Managing Director, Post Office Ujwal Nagar, Seepat, Police Station Seepat,
Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495555
2 – Manager, Human Resources Department National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited, Post Office Ujwal Nagar, Seepat Police Station Seepat,
Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495555
3 – National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Through Its Chief Managing
Director, Scope Complex, 7 Institutional Area, Lodhi Road New Delhi 110003
4 – Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
— Respondents
And
WPS No. 5612 of 2017
1 – Rajendra Kumar Kaiwartya S/o Pakla Kaiwartya Aged About 45 Years R/o
Village Nirtu, Post Ghutku, Police Station Koni, Tahsil Takhatpur, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – National Thermal Power Corporation Limited Through Its Chairman-Cum-
Managing Director, Post Office Ujwal Nagar, Seepat, Police Station Seepat,
Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 495555
2 – Manager, Human Resources Department, National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited, Post Office- Ujwal Nagar, Seepat, Police Station
Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 495555
3 – National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Through Its Chief Managing
Director, Scope Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi,
110003
4 – Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
— Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Alok Bakshi, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Prafull Bharat, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Anoorup Panda, Advocate
4
For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava,
Deputy Government Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
20/06/2025
1. The grievance of the petitioners is that their lands were acquired for
setting up a Power Plant at National Thermal Power Corporation (for
short ‘NTPC’), Seepat, District Bilaspur. It is further pleaded that when
lands were acquired, the petitioners and other land oustees were
given an assurance that as per the Rehabilitation Policy of the State
Government, they would be entitled to employment in lieu of their
lands. It is further pleaded that respondents No. 1 to 3 have
established and commissioned their Plant, but they have not
considered the claims of the petitioners for providing employment.
2. Mr. Alok Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
argue that respondents No. 1 to 3 have placed reliance on the
Condition/Clause No. 7 of the Agreement entered into between the
petitioners and the Management, wherein it is stated that the
petitioners accepted the compensation and rehabilitation as a final
settlement and agreed that they would make no further claim for
employment with NTPC under the Rehabilitation Policy. Mr. Alok
Bakshi would further submit that the Policy of the NTPC would not
prevail and the Rehabilitation Policy of the State Government would be
binding upon them. He would further contend that though there is a
mention of the Rehabilitation Policy in the Agreement, but the same
has not been placed on record by respondents No. 1 to 3. He would
also submit that the petitioners are poor villagers and have been
5
defrauded by respondents No. 1 to 3. He would further argue that an
assurance was given by respondents No. 1 to 3 to provide
employment, but the same has not been fulfilled till date. He has
placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in WPS No. 432 of 2011 on 23/07/2015 parties being Ku.
Rattho Bai & Anr. Vs. South Eastern Coalfield Limited Ors., where
it is held that the Rehabilitation Policy of the State Government has
statutory force and would prevail over any other policy made by the
Company or any other local institution.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Prafull Bharat, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 would oppose the submissions
made by Mr. Alok Bakshi. Mr. Prafull Bharat, learned Senior Counsel
would submit that full and final compensation was paid to the land
oustees by respondents No. 1 to 3. He would further submit that a
tripartite agreement was entered into between the parties, wherein a
decision was taken to prepare a priority list after taking into
consideration the area of land of the lands oustees. He would also
submit that it was also decided that the names of those land oustees,
whose area of acquired land is 01 acre or more would be considered
for the priority list. He would state that the area of the acquired lands
of the petitioners is less than 01 acre, therefore, their names do not
reflect in the priority list. It is also contended that the petitioners
knowing very well the conditions of the agreement, executed it in the
year 2001. He would further contend that the Rehabilitation Policy of
the year 2008 would not attract in the present case as the Agreement
was entered into in the year 2001, lands were acquired in the year
2000 and the sale deeds were executed by the petitioners in favour of
6
the NTPC. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab State Electricity
Board and Others Vs. Malkiat Singh, (2005) 9 SCC 22 wherein it is
held that the scheme giving appointment was only in the nature of
concession to eligible candidates which the respondent could not
claim as a matter of right having taken compensation amount for his
land.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents available on the record with utmost circumspection.
5. In the matter of Ku. Rattho Bai (supra) it is held that any guidelines
which do not have any statutory flavour are merely advisory in nature.
They cannot have the force of a statute. They are subservient to the
legislative Act and the statutory rules. Relevant paragraph Nos. 7 and
8 are reproduced herein below:-
“(7) The policy issued by the SECL in the year 2002
makes such provisions, however, a reading of the
Policy would indicate that the said policy does not
have any statutory force, whereas, the Rehabilitation
Policy issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh has
been issued for and on behalf of the Governor of
Madhya Pradesh. Since there is no legislation
covering the said field, the Policy has statutory
backing in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of
India. Thus, the Rehabilitation Policy issued by the
State Government would prevail upon the Policy of
the SECL.
(8) The Supreme Court in the matter of State of
Haryana vs. Mahender Singh and Others reported
in (2007) 13 SCC 606 has held thus in para 39 :
“39. It is now well settled that any guidelines
which do not have any statutory flavour are
merely advisory in nature. They cannot have the
force of a statute. They are subservient to the
legislative Act and the statutory rules. (See
Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji v. Union of
India, (1981) 1 SCC 166, J.R. Raghupathy vs.
State of A.P., (1988) 4 SCC 364 and Narendra
7Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India, 1990
(Supp) SCC 440).
6. In the matter of Malkiat Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 held as under:-
7. In the light of what is stated above, it is clear
that the respondent was not entitled to appointment.
The High Court was not right in directing the appellant
Board to appoint the respondent to the post of
Homoeopathic Physician. During the course of
arguments, we asked the learned counsel for the
respondent whether the respondent is willing to join in
any of the available vacancies even now. On
instructions from the respondent, the learned counsel
submitted that the respondent is only interested in
getting the appointment to the post of Homoeopathic
Physician and not any other post covered by the
scheme.
8. In view of what is stated above and having
regard to all aspects of the matter, we find that
impugned order cannot be sustained. Hence, the
appeal is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, it is allowed
and the impugned judgment is set aside. The writ
petition filed by the respondent is dismissed. No
costs.
7. Now coming to the facts of the present case, the lands of the
petitioners were acquired by the NTPC in the year 2000. The sale
deeds were executed by the petitioners in favour of the NTPC and full
consideration was paid. Condition No. 7/Clause-7 of the Agreement
dated 20.03.2001 entered into between land oustees and
Management reads as under:-
“7- ;g fd izFke i{k }kjk mijksDr iquokZl jkf’k izkIr
djus ds Ik’pkr iquokZl dk;Z ;kstuk ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr
izFke i{k ds iquokZl lacaf/kr lHkh nkoksa ij iw.kZ ,oa vfUre
fuiVku ekuk tk,xk rnqijkUr izFke i{k dk vU; dksbZ nkok
dkjiksjs’ku ij ekU; ugha gksxk A”
8. A bare reading of Clause-7 would make it clear that the matter of
compensation and employment were finally settled between the
parties and there was no occasion for the petitioners to claim
8
employment after 16 years without explaining the delay part.
9. Mr. Alok Bakshi argued that there was an assurance on the part of
respondents No. 1 to 3 to provide employment, but no document has
been placed on record to establish this submission.
10. It is not in dispute that the Rehabilitation Policy has a statutory force as
the same has been issued by the State, but at the same time, the
petitioners entered into an agreement with the NTPC and according to
Clause-7 of the Agreement, they waived their right to claim
employment against the acquisition of their lands.
11. In the matter Malkiat Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
categorically held that the scheme giving appointment is only in the
nature of concession to eligible candidates and the land oustees
cannot claim it as a matter of right, when they have already received
the amount of compensation.
12. The petitioners failed to explain the reason for filing these petitions
after 16 years of delay. Thus the claim of the petitioners is hit by delay
and laches.
13. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter Malkiat Singh
(supra), in the opinion of this Court, no case is made for interference.
14. Consequently, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No cost.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
vatti