JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner No. 1 is the grandson of one Sh. Amar Nath while petitioner No. 2 is the grandson of one Sh. Inder Singh whose land was acquired by Northern Railways for construction of Railway Line from Udhampur to Katra. Deputy Commissioner concerned had prepared a list for appointment of persons in the Railway Department whose more than 75% land had been acquired by the Northern Railways Udhampur. Names of the petitioners figure at Serial Nos. 36 and 31 of the said list (Annexure-A). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as per list Annexure-A, 84 % of the land of Grandfather of petitioner No. 1 and 100 % of the land of petitioner No. 2’s grandfather was acquired. The petitioners being fully eligible and entitled for appointment on account of acquisition of their grandfathers’ land, submitted applications, whereupon Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur vide letter dated 31.01.2007 (Annexure-B) forwarded documents of 39 families including the petitioners to the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu for further necessary action. Subsequently, Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur forwarded the applications of the petitioners alongwith the applications of other persons to the Deputy Chief Executive/S&C-1, Northern Railways, Udhampur vide letter dated 06.09.2009 for appointment in the Railways but needful has not been done on the ground that petitioners are not covered under the policy being grandsons and the benefit of employment being admissible only to sons and not to grandsons. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the decision of this Court dated 26.11.2014 in SWP No. 780/2010 in case titled Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union of India & ors. in which identical point was in issue wherein this Court by taking note of the fact that the policy was a beneficial provision and was never intended to restrict the benefit of employment as had been projected by the respondents, allowed the writ petition by holding the petitioner therein who was the grandson of the person whose entire land had been acquired was not disentitled to the grant of appointment under the policy and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner therein for employment in terms of the policy within eight weeks from the date of receipt of order. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has contended that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit under the policy as the same does not cover a grandson. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has contended that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit under the policy as the same does not cover a grandson. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that decision dated 26.11.2014 in SWP No. 780/2007 has attained finality. 5. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel. Admittedly, Co-ordinate Bench had taken into account the policy which provides for employment to one member of each family i.e. land owner/spouse/son/unmarried daughter as also the objection of the respondents that being grandson the petitioner therein was not entitled to employment in terms of the policy. The Co-ordinate Bench held that as per policy, the land owner, spouse, son or unmarried daughter was entitled to employment but the list mentioned in the policy was not exhaustive. The Co-ordinate Bench further held that the purpose of the policy was to provide benefit of employment to a member of the family whose land had been acquired to ensure survival of the rest of the family on being deprived of means of earning livelihood. In the said case, petitioners therein had lost entire land holding and therefore, employment alone was claimed to be the way of survival. In the instant petition also, one of the petitioner’s grandfather had lost 100% land while the other petitioner’s grandfather had lost 84% of the land. The list as per policy is not exhaustive and the objective of the policy being to benefit members of the family in order to ensure survival of the rest of the family on acquisition of all/major portion of land of the family, denial of appointment to petitioners herein is unsustainable. 6. In the light of the position as noted above, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for employment in terms of the policy within a period of 6 weeks’ from the date, certified copy of this order is submitted alongwith copy of the order dated 26.11.2014 in SWP No. 780/2007 in case titled Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union of India by treating the petitioners who are grandsons of the owners of land to be entitled to employment under the policy. 7. Writ petition allowed in aforementioned terms.