ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners in terms of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Ltd. and considering the facts that the land measuring 8.94 acres appertaining to Khata No. 83, Plot No. 1305 and 5.00 acres at Khata No. 83, Plot No. 700, total 13.94 acres, registered in the name of ancestors of the petitioners have been acquired for Rajrappa Project but they have been discriminated in the matter of grant of appointment under the land looser scheme of the respondents. Further prayer has also been made for immediately and forthwith issue letter of appointment in their favour if petitioners are found entitled for appointment. 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the lands recorded in the name of ancestor of the petitioners, namely, late Yammuna Devi measuring 8.94 acres appertaining to Khata No. 83, Plot No. 1305 and 5.00 acres at Khata No. 83, Plot No. 700, total 13.94 acres has been acquired by the respondents for its Rajrappa Project. Aforesaid lands were acquired by the respondents vide Land Acquisition Case No. 1/90-91, wherein late Yamuna Devi was recognized as raiyat over the said parcel of land. Further, the village map issued from the office of District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh also shows that the lands belonging to the ancestor of the petitioners have been acquired by the respondents. The name of late Yamuna Devi was also mentioned in the Register-II. It is the further case of the petitioners that in lieu of acquisition of their land, the respondent-CCL has released monetary compensation and further assurance was given to the family members of late Yamuna Devi that the employment shall be provided after completion of due formalities. The ancestors of the petitioners had continuously approaching the respondents for employment but no heed was paid to their said requests. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the respondent-CCL has framed a scheme namely, “Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Ltd., 2012”, which stipulates that the respondent-Company will rehabilitate and resettle the affected persons of coalfields areas. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the respondent-CCL has framed a scheme namely, “Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Ltd., 2012”, which stipulates that the respondent-Company will rehabilitate and resettle the affected persons of coalfields areas. Under the said scheme, it has been mentioned that the total number of employment that may be provided to the displaced persons would be limited to the total number of acres of land acquired divided by two. As such, for every two acres of land acquired, employment for one person can be considered. As per the policy of the respondent-Company at least six family members are entitled to be offered employment. When no employment was given, the petitioner represented before the respondents on 25.11.2015, 07.04.2016 and even served a legal notice dated 08.08.2015 but till date no heed has been paid in the matter. Hence, the petitioners have knocked the door of this Hon’ble Court for redressal of their grievances. 4. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously urges that the petitioners are entitled to be considered for employment in view the policy of the respondents for rehabilitation and resettlement of members of displaced family and the action of the respondents in not taking decision in the matter of appointment of the petitioners is arbitrary, illegal and against the rehabilitation and resettlement scheme of the respondents. Learned counsel further argues that as the scheme permits for compensation and employment to the family members of the displaced persons, the respondents cannot deny employment to the present petitioners. It has further been argued that similarly situated persons whose 2.00 acres of land have been acquired, have been offered employment and as such, the action of the respondents in unnecessarily delaying the matter for grant of appointment to the present petitioners is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory and also is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 5. Though no counter-affidavit has been filed but Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CCL vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and argues that the instant writ application is barred by law of limitation. 5. Though no counter-affidavit has been filed but Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CCL vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and argues that the instant writ application is barred by law of limitation. Learned counsel argues that from perusal of letter dated 11.01.1999 (Annexure-3) it is apparent that the petitioners himself have stated that their lands were acquired in the year 1962 and 1978 by the respondents for digging/mining works and order in land acquisition case has been passed in the year 1990. However, the petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court in the year 2017 by filing the instant writ application for redressal of their grievances. No sufficient reasons have been assigned for such delay and as such, the writ application is liable to be dismissed in limine. Mr. Das relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Renuka Bala Devi Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., reported in 2011 (3) JLJR 362 and submits that when the petitioners did not opt for appointment at the time when the policy was in operation, it is an act of waiver for any further employment and the claim for appointment cannot be granted after a long delay. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference in required in the instant case. The petitioners have failed to show as to why his family members were denied employment under Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy. Belated claim of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy could have been considered under the exceptional circumstance if the petitioners had been able to establish that they persued their claim diligently but due to the inaction of the respondents, their claims could not have been considered in time. The object under Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy is that such employment must be extended within a reasonable period of occurrence of such event. The object cannot be said to be achieved by providing employment after expiry of unreasonably long period. An employment given under a rehabilitation policy is comparable to the concept of compassionate appointment in service jurisprudence, thus, it cannot be claimed at belated stage. The object cannot be said to be achieved by providing employment after expiry of unreasonably long period. An employment given under a rehabilitation policy is comparable to the concept of compassionate appointment in service jurisprudence, thus, it cannot be claimed at belated stage. If the belated claim of the petitioners is held to be justified, it may lead to multiplicity of claims by different persons at different intervals belatedly and no policy will come to an end. Any policy for providing benefits to the sufferer/needy regard being had to the condition prevailing at the relevant time. Long delay at the instance of the needy, completely washes out the purpose to be achieved by the said policy at the relevant time. This Hon’ble Court in case of Renuka Bala Devi Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (supra) has held as under: “6. From the rival submissions, it appears that though, a scheme was floated by the respondent BCCL for granting employment to the members of the family of the land holders for every two acres of the land acquired, it was up to the land holders to inform and submit their claim seeking employment for the members of their family in accordance with the scheme floated. As it appears, the petitioner had made her claim for the first time in the year 1990 and that too, for only one employment. In the application or in the affidavit submitted by her for seeking employment, it does not appear that she had reserved her right for seeking any further employment, nor has she indicated even remotely in her application that she wants the number of employments in proportion to the area of land acquired. 7. ……………………. 8. It is apparent from the aforesaid facts that having claimed only one employment, the petitioner, for more than 20 years thereafter, did not opt for any further employment and the respondents have rightly considered such conduct on the part of the petitioner as an act of waiver of her claim for any further employment. After such belated period of more than 22 years from the date of acquisition of the lands, the petitioner cannot possibly claim the benefit of the policy which, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, has now been withdrawn.” 7. In the light of the above discussions and findings no merit in this application and therefore, this writ application is dismissed.