Court Upholds Grand-daughter's Right to Employment under 2008 R&R Policy. Land Acquisition Case: High Court Rules in Favor of Inclusive Definition of

Case Note & Summary

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.