Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Dhanraj Navnath Bhoyar (petitioner No.1) and Sandhya Navnath Bhoyar (petitioner No.2), filed a writ petition challenging the communication dated 03-04-2018 by which the claim of petitioner No.1 for appointment under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of the respondent (Western Coal Fields Ltd.) was rejected. The land of Maruti, the grandfather of petitioner No.1, was acquired on 27-05-2011. Petitioner No.2, Sandhya, is the daughter of Maruti. She filed Regular Civil Suit No.21/2015 regarding ancestral property, which was disposed of by a compromise decree. The decree provided that employment would be granted to the petitioners if permissible in law. Based on this decree, the petitioners approached the respondents for employment, but their request was rejected. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the rejection and to declare that the respondents are bound by the compromise decree, and also to declare the policy of refusing employment on the basis of linear dependent as unconstitutional. The court examined the definition of 'family' under the R. & R. Policy, 2008, which includes spouse, sons, daughters, and parents, but not grandsons. The court held that petitioner No.1, being a grandson, does not fall within the definition of 'family' and thus is not entitled to employment under the policy. The court also noted that the compromise decree itself stated that employment would be granted only if permissible in law, and since it is not permissible, the respondents are not bound by the decree. The challenge to the constitutional validity of the policy was not pressed by the petitioners. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Rehabilitation and Resettlement - Definition of Family - Employment - The definition of 'family' under the R. & R. Policy, 2008 does not include a grandson. The petitioner No.1, being the grandson of the landowner, is not entitled to claim employment under the policy. (Paras 6-7) B) Compromise Decree - Binding Effect - Employment - A compromise decree cannot confer a right to employment if it is not permissible in law. The decree specifically stated that employment would be granted 'if permissible in law'. Since the policy does not permit employment to a grandson, the respondents are not bound by the decree. (Paras 8-9) C) Constitutional Validity - Linear Dependent - Policy - The challenge to the policy of refusing employment on the basis of linear dependent was not pressed by the petitioners. Hence, no finding on the constitutional validity of the policy. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner No.1, being the grandson of the landowner whose land was acquired, is entitled to employment under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2008, and whether the compromise decree can compel the respondents to grant such employment.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The impugned communication dated 03-04-2018 is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy
- 2008
- definition of family
- grandson not included
- compromise decree cannot override policy
- no vested right to employment
