The court ruled that a grand-daughter qualifies as an 'other relative' under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of 2008, and her exclusion based on gender discrimination is impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

VINAY JOSHI, J.

1. Petitioners are invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for grant of employment to grand-daughter (petitioner No. 2) in terms of Rehabilitation and Resettlement (‘R&R’) Policy on account of acquisition a land for Western Coal Fields Ltd. (“WCL’).

2. It can be briefly stated that the Petitioner No. 1 was the owner of land measuring 1.62 HR bearing survey Nos. 61/4 and 47 situated at Mouza Naglon, Tah. Bhadrawti, District Chandrapur. By virtue of Notification issued by the Government of India under the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (‘the Act of 1957’) the aforesaid land was acquired for WCL project. Preliminary Notification under Section 4(i) of the Act of 1957 was issued on 19.04.2009 whilst Section 9(i) Notification dated 18.10.2011 was published on 22.10.2011, in effect vesting all rights, title and interest of the land in the Central Government.

3. At the time of publication of Notification under Section 9(i) of the Act of 1957, petitioner No. 1 was exclusive owner of said land. In terms of R&R Policy, the petitioner No. 1 (land owner) has nominated his grand-daughter (petitioner No. 2) for providing an employment against the acquisition of land. Initially, the respondents have acted upon said nomination by directing nominee (petitioner No. 2) to report the Chief Medical Officer for medical examination. After clearing medical examination, the respondents included her name in the list of other female candidatures who are selected for vocational training. It was followed by admitting petitioner No. 2 for vocational training which she did. Petitioner No. 2 was also included in the list for job training which she completed.

4. In the wake of said position, respondents vide communication dated 19.11.2016, informed that petitioner No. 2 being a grand-daughter, not eligible for employment, and requested to nominate some other eligible family member. Thereafter, again vide communication dated 28.07.2017, the respondents informed the petitioner No. 1 (land owner) to comply other formalities to accept one employment for acquisition of two pieces of lands being one unit. The said communication also bears a reference that the petitioner No. 1 has nominated his grand-daughter (petitioner No. 2) for the employment. However, no further steps have been taken, hence petitioner made representations on 12.11.2019 and 17.07.2021 for grant of employment, but in vain.

5. It is petitioners’ contention that despite initial acceptance of nomination of grand-daughter, respondents vide communication dated 20.08.2021, denied the employment to petitioner No. 2 for the reason that she is grand-daughter of the land owner. It was communicated that grand-daughter is not eligible for employment, hence to nominate some other eligible family member, or in the alternate accept additional compensation. Being aggrieved by the denial of employment to the grand-daughter, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court.

6. The respondent WCL resisted the petition vide reply-affidavit dated 28.09.2022. Though respondent admitted the preliminary facts, however contended that grand-daughter is not eligible for grant of employment as she does not satisfy the policy condition namely she does not fall within the term “family” defined under Clause 4(b) of the policy. Secondly, it is not shown that petitioner No. 2 (grand-daughter) was residing with the land owner at the time of publication of Notification or was dependent on the land owner. In addition, the respondent would submit that the petitioner No. 1 land owner was having two sons namely Suresh and Ramesh. Both owns separate landed property which was also acquired. The land of Suresh bearing survey No. 61/3 was acquired against which already employment was provided to his son Sandip who is real brother of petitioner No. 2. While giving an employment to Sandip, his father Suresh (also father of