The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed that the right to employment under a rehabilitation policy is an accrued right tied to the legal framework in force at the time of land acquisition. This ruling reinforces that post-acquisition policy changes cannot extinguish benefits promised to displaced families under the original scheme, grounding the entitlement in constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15, and 21.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Tikam Singh Nishad, is the son of a land oustee whose agricultural land was acquired by the State Government in 2003-04 for the Chhal Open Cast Coal Mining Project. The acquisition award was passed on 02.06.2005. At that time, the Rehabilitation Policy, 1991, issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, was in force. This policy mandated that one family member of each land oustee be offered employment. Despite compensation being paid, the respondents - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and government authorities - denied employment to the petitioner, applying the newer Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012, which excluded landowners with holdings below two acres.
Procedural History
- 2003-04: Land acquisition proceedings initiated for the Chhal Open Cast Mining Project.
- 02.06.2005: Acquisition award passed; Rehabilitation Policy, 1991, applicable.
- 2012: Coal India Limited introduced a new policy excluding small landholders.
- 15.09.2025: Petitioner submitted representation seeking employment under the 1991 Policy.
- 2026: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 after no response to representation.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant employment under the 1991 Policy, issue a reasoned order on his representation, declare his entitlement to all consequential benefits, and award costs.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the right to employment under a rehabilitation policy is governed by the policy in force at the time of land acquisition, or whether subsequent policy changes can override accrued rights of land oustees.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Pyarelal v. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (WPC No. 3076 of 2016), where the same High Court had held that the policy applicable at the time of acquisition must govern rehabilitation benefits. It was argued that denying employment under the 1991 Policy violated the petitioner’s rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, as the right to livelihood is an essential component of the right to life. The petitioner was not challenging compensation but asserting an accrued statutory and constitutional entitlement.
For the Respondent
The respondents contended that the petitioner was not the original land oustee and therefore had no independent claim. They argued that the 2012 Policy, being more recent and comprehensive, should apply. They further submitted that providing employment to all affected families was impractical and that full compensation had already been paid, thereby extinguishing any further obligation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the precedent set in Pyarelal v. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., which had already settled the issue in favor of the land oustees. The Court noted that the 2017 judgment in Pyarelal had not been challenged or set aside, and thus retained its binding authority. The Court emphasized that the right to employment under a rehabilitation policy is not a mere welfare benefit but a logical corollary of Article 21, which protects the right to life and livelihood. The Court held that once land is acquired under a specific policy, the beneficiaries acquire a vested right to the benefits promised under that policy. Subsequent policy changes cannot be used to deprive individuals of rights that had already accrued at the time of acquisition.
"Right of the land losers to get employment as per the rehabilitation policy is extremely important right and that has to be considered in accordance with law and in accordance with the policy in force on the date of acquisition of their land and subsequent change in policy will not take away their accrued right, if any, that has accrued to them by acquisition of their lands."
The Court further observed that denial of employment under the original policy amounted to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment, violating Articles 14 and 15. The respondents’ argument that compensation was full and final was rejected, as compensation and employment are distinct obligations under the 1991 Policy.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that the Rehabilitation Policy, 1991, governs the petitioner’s entitlement to employment, as it was in force at the time of land acquisition. The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner’s claim within 45 days, verifying whether compensation was received in lieu of employment.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Accrued Rights Cannot Be Nullified by Subsequent Policy
- Practitioners must argue that any rehabilitation benefit promised under a policy at the time of acquisition becomes a vested right.
- Subsequent policy amendments, even if more restrictive, cannot be applied retroactively to deny entitlements.
- Courts will treat such denials as violations of Article 21 and Article 14.
Employment Is Not Discretionary, But a Constitutional Entitlement
- Land oustees are not seeking charity; they are asserting a constitutional right linked to loss of livelihood.
- Authorities cannot invoke administrative convenience or financial constraints to evade obligations under the original policy.
- Representation must be decided within a reasonable time, and failure to do so invites writ jurisdiction.
Policy Interpretation Must Be Pro-Right
- When interpreting rehabilitation policies, courts will adopt a purposive construction favoring the displaced.
- The burden lies on the state to prove that a beneficiary has already received employment or waived the right.
- Merely paying compensation does not discharge the obligation to provide employment if the policy explicitly mandates both.
