The petitioners sought employment for petitioner No. 2 (grand-daughter) under the R&R Policy due to land acquisition by Western Coal Fields Ltd. (WCL). The landowner's grand-daughter was initially considered for employment but later denied based on her relationship to the landowner. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating the 2008 R&R Policy applies, which includes grand-daughters in the definition of "family." The court quashed the denial and directed WCL to reconsider the grand-daughter for employment within eight weeks.

1. Introduction:

   • Petitioners invoked writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution for employment for the grand-daughter (petitioner No. 2) under the R&R Policy due to land acquisition for WCL.

2. Factual Background:

   • Petitioner No. 1 owned land acquired by WCL under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957.
   • Land acquisition notifications were issued, and the land vested in the Central Government in 2011.
   • Petitioner No. 1 nominated his grand-daughter for employment under the R&R Policy.

3. Initial Actions:

   • Respondents accepted the nomination, conducted medical examination and job training for petitioner No. 2.
   • Later, respondents denied employment stating grand-daughter is not eligible as per the policy.

4. Petitioners' Contention:

   • Petitioners argued that the 2008 R&R Policy, which includes "other relatives," should apply as the notification was issued before the 2012 policy.
   • They emphasized the inclusive nature of the term "family" in the 2008 policy.

5. Respondents' Stand:

   • Respondents argued that grand-daughter does not fit within the "family" as defined in the 2012 policy.
   • They also mentioned that petitioner No. 2's father is alive, suggesting she is not dependent on the landowner.

6. Legal Precedents:

   • Petitioners cited previous judgments where grand-sons were considered under the 2008 policy.
   • Respondents cited cases where the 2012 policy was applied, excluding grand-daughters.

7. Court's Analysis:

   • The court determined that the 2008 policy should apply as the notification was issued before the 2012 policy.
   • The court found no justification for gender-based discrimination and held grand-daughter eligible under the 2008 policy.

8. Conclusion:

   • The court quashed the communication denying employment to the grand-daughter.
   • WCL is directed to reconsider the grand-daughter for employment without gender-based discrimination within eight weeks.