Policy prevalent at the time of acquisition governs rehabilitation and employment rights of land oustees.

In 2005, the State Government initiated land acquisition for the 'Saraipali Open Cast Project' of South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL).

An award was passed on September 6, 2007

The petitioners' land, originally recorded in the name of Late Madhosay, was among the acquired properties

SECL had initially agreed to provide employment to one family member of each land oustee as per the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991

SECL later processed employment claims under the 2012 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, which disqualified land oustees holding less than 2 acres of land

consequently, the petitioners' applications were rejected, leading them to seek a direction for employment under the 1991 Policy

Rehabilitation Policy of 1991 issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh

fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India

precedent set in Pyarelal vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Others (WPC No. 3076 of 2016), which held that the right to rehabilitation is an extension of the right to life under Article 21 and that accrued rights regarding employment cannot be extinguished by subsequent changes in policy

The Court observed that since the acquisition proceedings were initiated in 2005 and the award was passed in 2007, the 1991 Policy was the applicable framework.

The 2012 Policy was introduced long after the petitioners' rights had accrued and therefore could not be applied to their detriment.

Applying the reasoning from Pyarelal, the Court noted that the benefit of rehabilitation is a "logical corollary" of Article 21, and its denial is discriminatory under Articles 14 and 15.

The Court further highlighted that the Pyarelal judgment, which mandated consideration based on the policy active at the time of acquisition, had attained finality as it was not challenged by SECL.

the respondents' reliance on the 2-acre minimum landholding requirement of the 2012 Policy was legally unsustainable.

It held that the petitioners are entitled to have their claims considered under the 1991 Policy.

The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' claims for rehabilitation/employment strictly in light of the Pyarelal judgment within 45 days from the receipt of the order.

The writ petition was disposed of with no costs.