Maternal grandson excluded from definition of "affected family" under Rehabilitation Policy cannot claim employment for land acquisition.

The petitioner’s maternal grandfather, Prahlad Prasad Pandey, owned 1.32 acres of land in District Janjgir Champa, which was acquired for the Madwa Electrical Project under the Rehabilitation Policy, 2007

The petitioner applied for employment as a 'Line Attendant' (Contract) under the rehabilitation scheme, successfully clearing the physical efficiency test

However, the respondent-Company (CSPHCL) issued a letter dated 20.12.2019 rejecting his candidature

The rejection was based on the ground that the petitioner, being the maternal grandson (son of the land owner's daughter), did not fall within the definition of "affected family" as per Para 2.1(c) of the Policy

The petitioner challenged this exclusion as ultra vires and discriminatory

Whether the definition of "affected family" under Clause 2.1(x) of the Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, which excludes maternal grandsons, is ultra vires the Constitution

Whether a maternal grandson of a land oustee is entitled to claim employment under the Rehabilitation Policy, 2007

The Court primarily applied Clause 2.1(x) of the Chhattisgarh State Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, which defines "affected family" to include the affected person, spouse, minor children, dependent old parents, widowed mother or sister, and unmarried daughters

The Court also shifts the burden of dependency, noting that under Indian social norms and legal policy, a married daughter is generally treated as a member of her matrimonial family rather than her parental family

It further considered the principle of judicial restraint, holding that courts cannot expand the scope of a policy to include categories consciously excluded by the policy-maker

The Court examined the specific language of Clause 2.1(x) of the 2007 Policy and found it to be exhaustive rather than illustrative regarding the relatives eligible for benefits

The Court reasoned that the petitioner, as a maternal grandson, is the descendant of a married daughter who—under the logic of the policy—is no longer a dependent of the original land oustee's household

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument of discrimination, holding that the classification of eligible family members was a policy decision that did not suffer from manifest arbitrariness

Furthermore, the Court distinguished the precedent in South East Central Railway v. Yashvant, noting that the facts regarding dependency and the specific railway policy in that case were not applicable to the present statutory framework of the Chhattisgarh State Power Companies

The Court concluded that it cannot rewrite policy to include maternal descendants

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned order of the respondents declining employment was upheld