1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 4895 OF 2010 (Mahadeo Ganpat Parkhi .v. Western Coal Fields Limited and another) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri O.W. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.C. Mehadia, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 26TH JULY, 2011. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in lieu of employment which ought to have been provided to one of the members of the petitioner’s family as the petitioner was a project affected person. It is not in dispute that the land of the petitioner was acquired by the respondents some time in the year 1992 and it stood vested in the Central Government. The petitioner was paid the compensation for the acquisition of his land. Though as per the then prevailing policy, one of the members of the petitioner’s family was entitled to grant of employment, the petitioner did not claim any such employment for any of his family members at the relevant time. An application was, however, made to the respondents after a lapse of ten years. The said application was rejected as it was hopelessly delayed as the object of granting employment was to help the family of the land holder whose land was acquired. Since the member of the petitioner’s family was not granted re-employment, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in lieu of employment which ought to have granted to one of the members of the petitioner’s family. Though the land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1992, the petitioner has filed the present petition in the year 2010 after the application filed by the petitioner for grant of 2 employment to one of the members of his family was rejected in the year 2002. For claiming compensation in lieu of employment, the petitioner is relying on the policy of the respondents of the year 2007-2008. There is nothing on record to show that a similar policy existed in the year 1992 when the land of the petitioner was acquired. No case has been made out by the petitioner for grant of the relief sought by this petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.