Rehabilitation policy employment for land oustees need not be regular or permanent.

The petitioner’s agricultural land at Village Tendubhatha, Tehsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, was acquired for construction of the railway line/ash pipe line under the Madwa-Tendubhatha Thermal Power Project.

Pursuant to the acquisition, the respondents offered the petitioner employment by order dated 19 May 2026 as a Junior Attendant on a contractual basis for an initial period of three years, stating that the sanctioned posts earmarked for land oustees had already been filled.

The petitioner relied on appointment orders dated 22 December 2018 under which similarly situated land oustees of the same project had been appointed regularly as Plant Attendant Grade-II.

The respondents maintained that the earlier regular appointments had been made against posts available at that time and that no sanctioned regular posts remained vacant.

Whether the Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 required the respondents to provide a land oustee with regular or permanent employment against a sanctioned post, rather than contractual employment?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular appointment as Plant Attendant Grade-II on the basis that other land oustees of the same project had received regular appointments in 2018?

Whether the contractual appointment offered to the petitioner was arbitrary, discriminatory, or contrary to the applicable rehabilitation policy?

The Court applied Clause 7.1 of the Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, which provides for arranging “employment” for one member of each eligible displaced family, subject to qualification and suitability, and gives priority to project-affected persons.

The Court held that the policy does not expressly require such employment to be regular, permanent, or against a sanctioned post; therefore, “employment” cannot be construed as necessarily meaning regular employment.

The Court also referred to the ordinary meaning of “employment” in Black’s Law Dictionary—the act or state of being employed, or work for which a person is hired and paid—which does not inherently require permanence.

Earlier regular appointments do not create an indefeasible or perpetual right to parity where the relevant sanctioned posts are no longer available.

The Court found that the petitioner had in fact been provided employment as a land oustee, through the order dated 19 May 2026, for an initial period of three years with a provision regarding renewal.

Since Clause 7.1 of the Policy uses the broad expression “employment” and contains no requirement of regular or permanent appointment, the Court declined to read such an additional condition into the policy.

The respondents had specifically stated that the sanctioned and approved posts earmarked for regular employment of land oustees had already been exhausted.

The regular appointments made in 2018 were assessed in the administrative circumstances prevailing at that time and did not confer a continuing right on subsequently appointed land oustees to claim regular posts.

The contractual appointment was therefore held to be consistent with the applicable policy and not arbitrary or discriminatory merely because other land oustees had earlier received regular appointments.

The contractual appointment as Junior Attendant, made pursuant to the applicable rehabilitation policy and in view of the non-availability of sanctioned regular posts, was held valid.

The challenge to the contractual appointment and the prayer for regular appointment were rejected.

Accordingly, the writ petition—and the connected writ petition referred to in the order—was dismissed at the motion stage.