Bombay HC issues notice to Maharashtra govt over Chandrapur PAPs long wait for jobs and benefits

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has issued notices to the Maharashtra government, Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. (MAHAGENCO), the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, the Collector, Chandrapur District, and the Chief Engineer of Chandrapur Super Thermal Power Station on a petition filed by 85 project-affected persons (PAPs) whose lands were acquired for the thermal power project. 

The petition filed through advocate Ashish Fule, alleged that despite working for years as advanced skilled trainees, they have been denied regular employment and statutory benefits such as provident fund, gratuity, medical coverage, and family welfare schemes. 

A Division Bench of Justices Anil S. Kilor and Rajnish R. Vyas, while hearing the matter observed, “Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on December 5.” 

Additional Government Pleader S.M. Ukey waived service of notice on behalf of the State. 

Filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petition seeks immediate absorption of PAPs as regular employees and the quashing of an advertisement issued on December 26, 2024, for fresh recruitment. The petition argues that the advertisement violates the Government Resolution dated January 21, 1980, and the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, which mandate a minimum 5% quota and direct entry for PAPs in Class III and IV posts without competitive exams. 

“The respondents’ practice of retaining petitioners as trainees while appointing outsiders to regular posts is arbitrary and discriminatory, in direct contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution,” the petition said, adding that despite holding valid PAP certificates and working for years on the project site, petitioners remain classified as trainees, with salaries drawn from CSR funds, and have been deprived of fundamental entitlements like Provident Fund, Gratuity, and Medical Services.” 

The plea also cites an administrative circular dated September 8, 2009, which directed that posts reserved for PAPs should not be advertised but filled through direct recruitment from eligible candidates sponsored by the Collector or Resettlement Officer. The recent advertisement, the petitioners argued, disregards this mandate and threatens to exclude them from employment opportunities they have waited for decades. 

The PAPs, aged between 24 and 50, fear they will soon become age-barred for permanent employment. They have urged the court to direct the respondents to regularize their services from the date of initial appointment, with all consequential benefits, and to set aside the impugned advertisement. 

The matter will next be heard on December 5.