JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner under rehabilitation scheme in lieu of acquisition of his 3.18 acres of raiyati land. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the land measuring 3.18 acres of survey plot nos. 2187, 2189, 2208, 2455 (P), 120, 2062, 34/3 situated at Mouza- Rangamati Thana - Nawadih, Bermo (hereinafter to be referred as “the said land”) was recorded in the name of Kishori Nayak (the grandfather of the petitioner). The respondent no. 4 initiated a proceeding for acquisition of land situated at Rangamati for the purpose of expansion of the projects of the respondent no. 1 vide Case No. 50/58-59 and accordingly the award was passed. According to the petitioner, the respondents paid the monetary compensation to him but the employment under the land looser scheme of the respondent no.1 was not provided to him. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that several similarly situated persons have been provided employment under the land looser scheme in the year 2008. The petitioner also made representation before the respondent no. 4 and requested him to provide employment. The said application was forwarded to the respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 06.08.2010 for taking appropriate action. However, no action has been taken by the respondent no. 2 as yet. It is further submitted that the action of the respondents is highly illegal and arbitrary as they have made unreasonable differentiation between the similarly situated persons. It is also submitted that similarly situated persons namely Sita Ram Mahali and others had preferred a writ petition being CWJC No. 1828/98(R) which was disposed of vide order dated 28.09.1999 directing the respondents to decide the claims of the said petitioners in accordance with law. As the said order was not complied, a contempt case being Cont. Case (Civil No.) 871 of 2002 was filed and the same was disposed of vide order dated 13.05.2004 and thereafter the respondents provided employment to the said persons in the year 2008. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the said land was acquired way back in the year 1958-59 and the compensation was paid for the same. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the said land was acquired way back in the year 1958-59 and the compensation was paid for the same. The claim of petitioner seeking employment under the Land Loosers Scheme has been made after the lapse of about 50 years which cannot be entertained. In the year 1978, a panel of 61 displaced persons was drawn out of which, 31 candidates got employment and the matter of rest 30 candidates was scrapped owing to various disputes and objections raised by the local displaced persons. All the previous policies and circulars regarding appointment of displaced persons automatically came to an end in view of the order passed in C.W.J.C No. 1828 of 1998 (R) whereupon the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro was asked to verify the rectified list within a period of three months after receiving all claims from the DVC authorities within a period of two months from the date of judgment. The petitioner has mentioned the names of Tapan Chandra Thakur, Sitaram Mahli and Santosh Kumar Mahli stating that they have been given appointments as displaced persons under the similar acquisition of land, however the said incumbents were appointed on the basis of the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro in terms with the direction of this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. Undisputedly, the land of the petitioner was acquired by the respondent-Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) for the purpose of establishment of Chandrapura Thermal Power Station in the year 1958-59 and he has also been paid compensation in lieu thereof. It is also not in dispute that apart from compensation, many displaced persons were provided employments till 1998, however some displaced persons preferred writ petitions before this Court being CWJC No. 1828 of 1998(R) claiming appointment and pursuant to the direction of this Court, the claim of the petitioners of that case was verified by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro and on his recommendation, they were also provided employment. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the similarly situated persons have been provided employment, the petitioners’ case for employment has not yet been considered. On the contrary, the contention of the respondent-DVC is that such a belated claim of the petitioner is not worth consideration. 6. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the similarly situated persons have been provided employment, the petitioners’ case for employment has not yet been considered. On the contrary, the contention of the respondent-DVC is that such a belated claim of the petitioner is not worth consideration. 6. To appreciate the contention of the parties, I have perused the record of the case. The petitioner filed his representation on 06.08.2010 seeking employment under the Land Loosers Scheme of the respondent no.1 only when the writ petitioners of CWJC No. 1828 of 1998 (R) were provided employment. No sufficient explanation has been put forth by the petitioner as to why he did not raise his grievance prior to 06.08.2010. 7. The purpose of giving employment to the persons whose land have been acquired is to rehabilitate them so as not to be deprived of their right of livelihood. The said object is achieved if such employment is extended within reasonable period, however the object cannot be fulfilled by providing rehabilitation employment after expiry of reasonably long period. An employment provided under rehabilitation policy can be compared with purpose of compassionate employment as known in service jurisprudence, thus cannot be claimed at a belated stage. If the claim of the petitioner is allowed at this juncture, it may lead to multiplicity of stale claims by different persons and the age old policy will never come to an end. Any policy to provide benefit to the sufferer is framed in context with the prevailing condition at the relevant time. 8. In the case of Butu Prasad Kumbhar & Ors. Versus Steel Authority of India and Ors. reported in (1995) Supp 2 SCC 225, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has as under:- “6. The constitutional challenge based on Article 21 does not appear to have any substance. In Olga Tellis { (1985) 3 SCC 545 } it was observed by this Court that the concept of right of life conferred was wide and far-reaching and the deprivation of the right to livelihood without following the procedure established by law was violative of the fundamental guarantee to a citizen. Needless to say that petitioners or their ancestors were not deprived of their land without following the procedure established in law. Their land was taken under the Land Acquisition Act. They were paid compensation for it. Needless to say that petitioners or their ancestors were not deprived of their land without following the procedure established in law. Their land was taken under the Land Acquisition Act. They were paid compensation for it. Therefore, the challenge raised on violation of Article 21 is devoid of any merit. Even otherwise the obligation of the State to ensure that no citizen is deprived of his livelihood does not extend to provide employment to every member of each family displaced in consequence of acquisition of land. Rourkela Plant was established for the growth of the country. It is one of the prestigious steel plants. It was established in public sector. The Government has paid market value for the land acquired. Even if the Government or the steel plant would not have offered any employment to any person it would not have resulted in violation of any fundamental right. Yet considering the poverty of the persons who were displaced both the Central and the State Government took steps to ensure that each family was protected by giving employment to at least one member in the plant. We fail to appreciate how such a step by the Government is violative of Article 21. The claim of the petitioners that unless each adult member is given employment or the future generation is ensured of a preferential claim it would be arbitrary or contrary with the constitutional guarantee is indeed stretching Article 21 without any regard to its scope and ambit as explained by this Court. Truly speaking it is just the other way. Acceptance of such a demand would be against Article 14.” 9. The scheme of rehabilitation employment cannot be permitted to perpetuate even after more than 50 years. Grant of employment under rehabilitation scheme after such a long period would also be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The appointment on the ground of rehabilitation cannot be considered as an alternative source of recruitment or a scheme for reserving future vacancies for minor children of the displaced persons. 10. In the case of Talkeshwar Baskey Vs. The Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors. (W.P(S) No. 4138 of 2012) with Dil Mohammad Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors. The appointment on the ground of rehabilitation cannot be considered as an alternative source of recruitment or a scheme for reserving future vacancies for minor children of the displaced persons. 10. In the case of Talkeshwar Baskey Vs. The Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors. (W.P(S) No. 4138 of 2012) with Dil Mohammad Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors. (W.P.S No. 4186 of 2012) wherein the claim of employment was rejected by a Bench of this Court observing that the land were acquired by the Government in the year 1958-59 itself i.e about 58 years ago and that cannot make out a perpetual claim for appointment of the persons in the displaced category for all times to come. The said judgment was also affirmed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dil Mohammad Vs. The Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors. (L.P.A No. 248 of 2017) with following observation:- “4. It appears that this appellant has waited only for few generation, necessarily or unnecessarily, but, the fact remains that those who are not vigilant for their rights, the Court cannot held them and more particularly, this appellant is not vigilant for more than 50 years, therefore, no writ can be issued, even if, any wrong is committed by the respondent no. 1, hence, no error is committed by the learned Single Judge while deciding writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4138 of 2012 vide judgment and order dated 13.06.2016.” 11. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that since the land was acquired in 1958-59 and the petitioner made representation in the year 2010 i.e after about 50 years, such a belated claim cannot be entertained. Though the petitioner has tried to equate his case with other persons who were provided employment in the year 2008, yet they had raised the claim much before and filed writ petition in the year 1998. Thus, there is reasonable difference between the present petitioner vis-à-vis the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 1828 of 1998(R). The petitioner has sought relief under equitable writ jurisdiction. There is a well-known maxim of equity- “vigilantibus non dormientibus, aequitas subvenit” i.e. equity comes to the aid of those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights. Thus, there is reasonable difference between the present petitioner vis-à-vis the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 1828 of 1998(R). The petitioner has sought relief under equitable writ jurisdiction. There is a well-known maxim of equity- “vigilantibus non dormientibus, aequitas subvenit” i.e. equity comes to the aid of those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights. The petitioner slept for about 50 years and only having come to know that some persons have got employment pursuant to the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1828 of 1998(R), he started pursuing his matter in the year 2010. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.