IGH CGURT OF CHHATTIE‘GARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition 1S} N0. 71 79 of 20m PETETEONERS 1. Smt. Savih‘i Dubay, Aged about 50 yaars, Wd/o Late Jagatnarayan Dubey Caste Brahmin, Through. Power of attorney Holder Gulabdutt Dubey, Aged about ’70 years, S/o Late Kedamath Dubey. 2‘ Ramesh Kumar Dubey, Aged about 39 years, S/o Gulabdutt Dubey, 3‘ Mahendra Kumar, aged about 34 years, S/o Bhagwat Prasad, All R/o Village Sardi, Tahsil Baikunthpur, Dist‘t. Koria (CG). VERSUS kESPONDENTs 1. State 0f Clvhamsgarh through The Secretary Rehabilitaiion Depmtment DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through the General Manager, Bailmnthpur area, Distt. Koria (CG) 3. Sub Area Manager, Charcha West Colliery, (SECL) Post Charcha, Distt. Koria (CG). Sub Divisional ()mcer, Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (E: Hon'ble Mr. Sah'sh K. Agnihotri, J.} 4. Collector, Koria, Baikunthpur. 'JI Preeent : Shri D.N. Prajapati. Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Satish Gupta, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER V (Passed on this 04‘" of Decemher, 23M) l. The husband of petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 2 8; 3 alongwith three other petitioners filed a petition in the year 2003? being WP. No. 935 of 20(l3 (Jagat Narayait & Others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others). 2. This court, atter hearing the parties at length particularly on the basis ofthe concession made by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 and 3 to the fact that under the policy of land acquisition, one member of the land holder is entitled to employment inaddition to compensation aga'mst the acquisition \ i x_ H of land and fmfher it was granted to several persons. The petition was allowed with a clirection to the respondent N0. 2 and 3 to refer the case of the petitioners to the committee constituted for the purpose Ofemployment to one member of the land holder'e family and pass order of appointment accordingly, in accordance with the poiieies of the State as well as the Company. . Pursuant to the order dated 09.01.2006, passed by this Court in WE. No. 935 of 2003, oases of the petitioners were considered. Petitioner No. 1 was informed that under the policy, her husband Shri Jagat Nar‘ayan; who was the writ petitioner in Wl’. No. 935 of 2003,. was given appointment in addition to compensation in lieu of acquisition of his land. Thereader, the application of the petitioner was again considered under the said scheme. Petitioner No. 2 had already been given employment as it is clear from the letter dated 17/19.10.2006 (Amiexure PM) and working in Chareha West Colliery. . In respect of petitioner No. 3, the respondent No. 2 and Ct eotnmunieated the decision ofthe authorities vide letter dated 22.03.2007 (Annemre P/S), that the Son-in-Law of the land owner is not entitled to employment under the rehabilitation policy. thus the same was rejected. . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner'tin‘ther submits that the Son-in- Laws have been given employment in several cases. . Petitioner No. 3 was denied the appointment. In respect of petitioner No.1 and 2. the order passed by this court on 09.01.2006 in WP. No. 935 of 2003 (Jagat Narayan & Others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others) (supra) has been complied with. If, there is any ease, where the Son-in-Law has been granted appointment in addition to compensation in lieu of aequisition of land, the respondent authorities (respondent No. 2 and 3) may consider “A @ the applicatian of petitioner No. 3, in the light of appointment made to Son-in-Law, if any. ‘7. There is no merit in this case. The petition deserves to be and is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri l Sahu