Rehabilitation policy employment obligations do not require appointment to regular or permanent posts.

The petitioners’ agricultural lands in Village Tendubhatha, District Janjgir-Champa, were acquired for construction of a railway line/ash pipe line connected with the Madwa-Tendubhatha Thermal Power Project.

As land oustees, they were offered employment by the Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited through order dated 19.05.2026, but only on a contractual basis as Junior Attendants for an initial period of three years, with renewal provisions, on the ground that sanctioned posts earmarked for regular employment of land oustees had already been filled.

The petitioners relied on appointment orders dated 22.12.2018 by which similarly situated land oustees of the same project had allegedly been appointed regularly as Plant Attendant Grade-II, and sought similar regular appointments.

The respondents contended that the earlier appointments were made against posts available at that time and that the petitioners had no vested right to appointment against an unavailable sanctioned post.

Whether contractual employment offered to the petitioners as land oustees satisfied the employment-related obligation under Clause 7.1 of the Chhattisgarh Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, despite not being regular or permanent employment.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to regular appointment as Plant Attendant Grade-II on the basis of regular appointments granted to other land oustees in 2018.

Whether offering contractual employment, while regular sanctioned posts had allegedly been exhausted, was arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of the petitioners’ enforceable rights.

The Court applied Clause 7.1 of the Chhattisgarh Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, which provides for arranging employment for one eligible member of each displaced family, subject to qualification and suitability, while also contemplating priority, training, and age relaxation for project-affected persons.

The Court held that the policy uses the expression “employment” and does not require “regular employment,” “permanent employment,” or appointment against a regular sanctioned post; therefore, contractual employment may satisfy the policy in the absence of an express contrary stipulation.

The Court also relied on the ordinary meaning of “employment” in Black’s Law Dictionary, which does not inherently require permanent employment.

Equality or parity in employment does not create an indefeasible right to replicate appointments made in different administrative and factual circumstances, particularly where the relevant sanctioned posts are no longer available.

Clause 7.1 required the respondents to provide employment to an eligible member of the displaced family but did not mandate appointment to a regular post.

The petitioners had in fact been offered employment as Junior Attendants on contract for three years, with a provision concerning renewal, and the appointment order recorded that regular posts under the land-oustee quota had already been filled.

The Court found that the 2018 appointments had to be assessed in the context of the availability of sanctioned posts at that time; they did not confer a continuing right upon subsequently appointed land oustees to demand regular employment.

Since the policy could not be judicially supplemented by reading in a requirement of permanent appointment, the contractual appointments could not be invalidated merely because they differed from the earlier regular appointments.

The challenge to the contractual nature of their appointments was rejected, and both writ petitions were dismissed at the motion stage as devoid of merit.