Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 18/09/2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Jaydeep Rathore, S/o Late Bhuwneshwar Rathore, aged about 22 years, resident of Village Sarkhon, Purena Para, Ward No 12, P.S. Janjgir, District Janjgir‑Champa, Chhattisgarh.
  • Respondents:

1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur.

2. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited (CSPGCL) through Managing Director, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Raipur.

3. Executive Director, Human Resource, CSPGCL, Dangannia, Raipur.

4. Chief Engineer, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Thermal Power Station (Marwa‑Tendubhata), Post Vidyut Nagar, Lachhanpur, Village Marwa‑Tendubhatha, District Janjgir‑Champa.

5. Collector, District Janjgir‑Champa.

6. Sub‑Divisional Officer, Land Acquisition Officer, Janjgir, District Janjgir‑Champa.

  • Nature of Petition: Two writ petitions (WPS No. 6838 of 2026) seeking regular appointment on the post of Plant Attendant Grade‑II, contending that the contractual appointment offered violates the Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 and is discriminatory compared with earlier regular appointments granted to other land‑oustees.
  • Background: The petitioners’ agricultural land at Village Tendubhatha, Tehsil Janjgir, was acquired for the Madwa Tendubhatha Thermal Power Project (including a railway/ash‑pipe line). An employment offer dated 19‑05‑2026 provided a contractual appointment as Junior Attendant for an initial period of three years, with renewal provisions. Earlier, on 22‑12‑2018, certain land‑oustees were appointed on regular posts of Plant Attendant Grade‑II.
  • Petitioner’s Submissions: The petitioners argued that all sanctioned regular posts for land‑oustees had been filled, yet other similarly situated persons received regular appointments, making the contractual offer arbitrary and discriminatory. They prayed for regular appointment on the Plant Attendant Grade‑II post.
  • Respondents’ Submissions: The respondents contended that the contractual appointment complied with the applicable policy, that all regular posts earmarked for land‑oustees were already filled, and that earlier regular appointments were made based on the availability of posts at that time; therefore, no vested right to a regular post exists.
  • Legal References Cited: Clause 7 of the Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 (State of Chhattisgarh) and its sub‑clause 7.1; definition of “employment” from Black’s Law Dictionary.

Court’s Reasoning

1. The Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 provides for “employment” of one member of each eligible displaced family, subject to qualification and suitability, but does not stipulate that such employment must be on a regular or permanent post.

2. The expression “employment” in the policy, and its Hindi wording “रो‑जगारो की व्यवस्था की जाएगी”, does not contain the terms “regular employment”, “permanent employment”, or “appointment against a regular sanctioned post”.

3. The contractual appointment dated 19‑05‑2026, made on the basis that all regular posts for land‑oustees were already filled, is therefore consistent with the policy.

4. Earlier regular appointments dated 22‑12‑2018 were made under the factual circumstances prevailing then, when sanctioned posts were available; they do not create an indefeasible right for later petitioners.

5. The Court referred to Black’s Law Dictionary, noting that “employment” merely means the act of being employed and does not inherently require permanence.

6. Consequently, the petitioners have been provided the benefit of employment as land‑oustees, but no enforceable right to a regular Plant Attendant Grade‑II post exists.

Final Outcome

  • Both writ petitions are dismissed at the motion stage.
  • The contractual appointments of the petitioners as Junior Attendants for an initial three‑year period remain in force.
  • No order for regular/ permanent appointment is issued.

Topics: Land Acquisition; Employment of Displaced Persons; Model Rehabilitation Policy