Daughter-in-law Entitled to Rehabilitation Employment as Integral Member of Land Loser’s Family

The applicant’s mother-in-law owned land (Khasara No. 65/2) in Village Madna, which was acquired by the Railways for a project.

Under the Railways’ rehabilitation scheme, one family member of the land loser is entitled to employment assistance.

Given that the mother-in-law was 65 years old and the applicant’s husband was suffering from a serious ailment rendering him unable to work, the mother-in-law nominated the applicant (her daughter-in-law) for the position.

The respondents rejected the application via order dated 21.01.2020, stating that under the existing policy, only the land loser, spouse, son, or daughter are eligible, and a daughter-in-law is excluded.

1. Whether a daughter-in-law is entitled to employment assistance on rehabilitation grounds as an integral part of the family, despite her exclusion from the specific list of relations in the Railway policy?

The Tribunal relied on the policy instructions dated 16.07.2010 regarding employment for land losers.

It primarily applied the legal principle established by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Vibha Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and others (2024), which held that a daughter-in-law is an integral part of the family.

The Tribunal followed its own recent precedent in Original Application No. 200/296/2022 (decided on 26.09.2025), which emphasized a liberal interpretation of welfare measures intended to mitigate hardship for displaced families.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the 2010 policy instructions do not explicitly name the "daughter-in-law," such administrative instructions cannot "snatch the legitimate right" of a family member when judicial precedents have recognized the daughter-in-law as an integral part of the family unit.

The court observed that the rehabilitation scheme is a welfare measure designed to provide relief to families losing their livelihood due to land acquisition; therefore, it requires a liberal rather than a restrictive approach.

In this specific case, the owner (mother-in-law) and the husband were medically or physically unable to take the job and were dependent on the applicant, making her the sole viable candidate for the family’s support.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the Railways failed to account for the established legal position regarding familial status.

It quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 21.01.2020. The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s case for appointment under the Railways and, if found otherwise eligible, issue the necessary appointment order within 90 days. The Original Application was allowed with no order as to costs.