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 appertaining to Khata No. 5, Plot Nos. 5, 6, 13, 26, 27, 42, 55, 60, 61, 62, 77, 89, 91, 96, 113, 114, 115, 117, 148, 152, 169, 173, 239, 241, 242, 243, 245, 246, 247 ad-measuring 19.79 acres, Khata No. 17, Plot No. 110, 175 ad-measuring 1.23 acres at village Hutugdag, Khata No. 41, Plot No. 1193, ad-measuring 0.92 acres and Khata No. 42, Plot No. 1160, 1346, 821, 847, 909, 1136 measuring 5.10 acres at village Sewai and Khata No. 2, Plot No. 25, 372 ad-measuring 1.04 acres, Khata No. 28 and 29, Plot No. 394, 402, 411, ad-measuring 0.25½ acres at Village Sandi, total 24.34 acres, registered in the name of ancestors of the petitioners have been acquired for Rajrappa Project but they have been discriminated in the manner 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 Kashi Nath Choudhary measuring 24.34 acres appertaining to Khata No. 5, Plot Nos. 5, 6, 13, 26, 27, 42, 55, 60, 61, 62, 77, 89, 91, 96, 113, 114, 115, 117, 148, 152, 169, 173, 239, 241, 242, 243, 245, 246, 247 ad-measuring 19.79 acres, Khata No. 17, Plot No. 110, 175 measuring 1.23 acres at village Hutugdag, Khata No. 41, Plot No. 1193, ad-measuring 0.92 acres and Khata No. 42, Plot No. 1160, 1346, 821, 847, 909, 1136 ad-measuring 5.10 acres at village Sewai and Khata No. 2, Plot No. 25, 372 measuring 1.04 acres, Khata No. 28 and 29, Plot No. 394, 402, 411, measuring 0.25½ acres at Village Sandi in the district of Ramgarh had been acquired by the respondents for Rajrappa Project. Aforesaid parcel of lands were acquired by the respondents through land acquisition proceedings, wherein, Bhadra Nath Choudhary was recognized as raiyat over the said parcel of land. Aforesaid parcel of lands were acquired by the respondents through land acquisition proceedings, wherein, Bhadra Nath Choudhary was recognized as raiyat over the said parcel of land. In view of the acquisition of aforesaid parcel of land, the company had no doubt released the amount payable towards monetary compensation but insofar as employment is concerned, it has offered employment to six of the descendants of the family of late Kashi Nath Chouhdary. In view of acquisition of 24.34 acres of land and offer of appointment being made to only six persons, Bhadra Nath Choudhary had represented before the respondent-General Manager for appointment of the present petitioners in terms of the rehabilitation scheme. In response to the representation of Bhadra Nath Choudhary, the General Manager (L&R) vide his letter dated 01.06.2006 had asked the General Manager, Rajrappa Area to submit the details in relation to acquisition of land of the said Bhadra Nath Choudhary and the appointments. made thereof. In pursuance to the direction passed by the General Manager (L&R), the matter of acquisition of land owned by the father of the present petitioners and Bhadra Nath Choudhary was enquired by the Amin, who had submitted his report dated 25.08.2008 but no decision has been taken till date. It is the further case of the petitioners that though 24.34 acres of land has been acquired by the respondents but only six employments were given under the land looser scheme. 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 one person can be considered. As per the policy of the respondents at least 12 family members are entitled to be offered employment however, only six persons have been offered appointment. The petitioners have also served Family Tree for processing their claims under land looser scheme but till date nothing has been done in the matter of appointment of the petitioners under land looser rehabilitation scheme. The petitioners have also served Family Tree for processing their claims under land looser scheme but till date nothing has been done in the matter of appointment of the petitioners under land looser rehabilitation scheme. The petitioners have represented on 08.09.2015 and vide legal notice dated 25.07.2016 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 of 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. Learned counsel argues that from Annexure-1 series it is appearant that their lands were acquired sometime in the year 1962-63 by the respondents for digging/mining works and monetary compensation had been paid to them. 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. 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 have perused 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. 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. 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 finding no merit in this application and therefore, this writ application is dismissed.