Land-loser employment is available only upon strict compliance with the governing scheme’s eligibility criteria.

The petitioner sought appointment of his son in an unskilled Group-D post under the land-loser category arising from acquisition of the petitioner’s land for the Mejia Thermal Power Station (“MTPS”), Damodar Valley Corporation (“DVC”).

The petitioner had received compensation for the land in 1987 and claimed that his son satisfied the eligibility requirements under the applicable policy.

He relied on a representation dated 29 December 2008 requesting consideration of his son’s appointment and on a hearing notice dated 9 July 2003 for verification of original documents.

The respondents contended that the petitioner’s son did not satisfy the eligibility criteria when the application was made, that the alleged representation had not been received by MTPS, and that the petitioner approached the Court after an unexplained delay of approximately 22 years from receipt of compensation.

A report filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 stated that the petitioner had not complied with the direction to produce original documents for verification and that MTPS, DVC—not respondent Nos. 7 and 8—was the competent authority to consider appointment under the applicable policy.

Whether the petitioner’s son fulfilled the eligibility criteria for appointment to a Group-D post under the land-loser category applicable to MTPS, DVC.

Whether the respondents were required to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 29 December 2008 seeking appointment of his son.

Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on account of the petitioner’s unexplained delay and laches.

Appointment as an additional benefit to persons whose land has been acquired must be granted strictly in accordance with the governing scheme or policy and cannot be claimed dehors its eligibility conditions.

The Court relied on the Division Bench decision in Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors. v. Sephali Majhi & Ors., which referred to Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. v. Malkiat Singh, JT 2004 (8) SC 526, for the principle that employment benefits to land losers must conform strictly to the applicable scheme.

Under the MTPS policy, eligibility required, inter alia, minimum Class VIII qualification, the prescribed age range, nomination of an eligible spouse/son/unmarried daughter, loss of at least 76% of the total land with a minimum holding of 0.33 acres, and acquisition of the land for MTPS on or before 20 March 1986.

A claim may also be defeated by unexplained and inordinate delay in invoking writ jurisdiction.

The Court found no sufficient evidence that the petitioner’s son satisfied the applicable policy requirements.

Although the petitioner asserted that his son had passed the Madhyamik examination in 2008, the son admittedly had not completed even Class VIII when the hearing for document verification was scheduled in 2003; the record contained no material establishing subsequent compliance with all eligibility conditions.

The petitioner had also failed to produce the original documents for verification.

Further, the alleged representation dated 29 December 2008 was not shown to have been received by MTPS, the competent appointing authority; communications dated 8 April 2025 and 11 April 2025 supported the respondents’ position that MTPS had not received it.

Since appointment had to be made strictly under the policy, the Court could not direct appointment in the absence of proof of eligibility.

The petitioner’s unexplained delay of about 22 years after receiving compensation independently weakened the claim.

The writ petition, WPA 23998 of 2009, was accordingly dismissed.

No order was made as to costs.

The Court clarified that it had adjudicated only the issue of appointment of the petitioner’s son and nothing beyond it.