The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed that when a state implements a rehabilitation policy offering employment in lieu of land acquisition, failure to act on eligible claims constitutes a violation of reasonable expectation and equal protection. This judgment establishes a clear timeline for administrative action, reinforcing the state’s duty to implement its own policies with fairness and promptness.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Aashish Kumar Dewangan, is the descendant of landowners whose ancestral property - Khasra No. 1721/23, measuring 0.15 acres - was acquired by the State of Chhattisgarh. Under the State’s Rehabilitation Policy, affected landowners are entitled to preferential employment in government-linked industries. Despite this policy, the petitioner, who holds a degree in Mechanical Engineering, was denied employment despite multiple representations.
Procedural History
- The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking enforcement of his right to employment under the Rehabilitation Policy.
- He submitted that other similarly situated individuals, whose land was acquired and allotted to Respondent No. 7 - Prakash Industries Limited - had already been employed.
- The authorities had not issued any reasoned order rejecting his claim, leaving his grievance unresolved for years.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- A direction to decide his representation on merits within a stipulated time
- Grant of employment in lieu of land acquisition on a preferential basis
- Any other relief the Court deemed just
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the state’s inaction amounted to arbitrariness and discrimination, violating Article 14 and the principle of legitimate expectation. He emphasized that the policy was not merely aspirational but binding on the state. The respondents did not contest the existence of the policy or the petitioner’s eligibility but failed to provide any substantive reply.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the State, having framed a Rehabilitation Policy guaranteeing employment to displaced landowners, can indefinitely delay or ignore claims without providing a reasoned decision, and whether such inaction violates constitutional guarantees of equality and non-arbitrariness.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on State of U.P. v. Renusagar Power Co. to argue that once a policy is formulated and communicated, it creates a legitimate expectation that the state must honor. He cited K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to underscore that administrative silence in the face of a statutory policy amounts to arbitrariness. He further contended that granting employment to others similarly situated while excluding him constituted discriminatory treatment under Article 14.
For the Respondent
The respondents did not file a detailed counter-affidavit. Their counsel offered no substantive defense of the delay or denial, nor did they dispute the petitioner’s qualifications or the applicability of the policy. The absence of a reasoned response was treated by the Court as an admission of procedural lapse.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the Rehabilitation Policy and found it to be a binding administrative framework, not a mere guideline. The policy was publicly notified and formed part of the state’s commitment to displaced families. The Court held that the petitioner’s claim was not speculative but rooted in a concrete policy obligation.
"The State cannot create a policy for the benefit of affected persons and then remain indifferent to their legitimate claims without assigning any reason. Such inaction is not merely administrative delay - it is a denial of justice."
The Court distinguished this case from those involving discretionary appointments, noting that here the entitlement arose from a specific quid pro quo - land acquisition in exchange for employment. The fact that others in identical circumstances had been employed further reinforced the petitioner’s claim of discriminatory treatment.
The Court rejected the notion that the petitioner must exhaust all possible remedies before approaching the High Court, noting that the state’s own policy mechanism had failed. The absence of a speaking order rendered the process void.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that the State’s failure to decide employment claims under its own Rehabilitation Policy violates Article 14 and the principle of legitimate expectation. The Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation within 15 days, and the authorities to issue a speaking order within 45 days.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Employment Claims Under Policy Cannot Be Ignored
- Practitioners must now treat state rehabilitation policies as binding obligations, not discretionary favors
- Administrative silence for more than 60 days on such claims may be challenged as arbitrary under Article 14
- Failure to issue a speaking order, even if the claim is ultimately rejected, renders the decision legally invalid
Discrimination in Implementation Is Actionable
- If similarly situated claimants have been granted employment, exclusion of one without justification constitutes discrimination
- Petitioners can now cite this judgment to demand equal treatment under uniform policies
- Evidence of differential treatment must be documented and presented as part of the writ petition
Timelines for Administrative Action Are Now Enforceable
- Courts will impose strict timelines (e.g., 45 days) for decisions under policy-based entitlements
- Delay beyond the stipulated period may lead to contempt proceedings or mandatory directions
- Practitioners should include prayer for timelines in all writ petitions involving policy implementation
