Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Tapas Kumar Barman vs S E Railway on 23 December, 2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA O.A.No.1697/2018 M.A.No.263/2022 . M.A.No.264/2022 Date of Order: 23.12.2022 Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member Tapas Kumar Barman, Son of Prafullya Barman, residing at Village and Post Office: Hanubhunia, Police Station: Nandigram, District : Purba Medinipur, Pin Code: 7216625 seetseneen Applicant 1. Union of India, Service through the General Manager, Manager, South Eastern Railway, 11, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata - 700043; 2. The Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of India, Rail Bhaban, New Delhi, Pin Code: 400001; . 3. The Divisional Railway Manager(P), | South Eastern Railway, having his office at Kharagpur, District: Paschim Medinipur, Pin Code: 721301; 4, Senior Divisional Personne! Officer, South Eastern Railway, Post Office: Kharagpur, District : Paschim Medinipur, Pin Code : 721301; 5. The Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, South Eastern Railway, Office at Bungalow No.12A, B.N.R, 11, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata - 700043; 6. The Chief Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway, Office at B.N.R.,11, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata - 700043 seveneuae Respondents ye For the applicant: Mr. B. Chatterjee, counsel Mr. K. Misra, counsel Mr. T.D. Maiti, counsel For the respondents : Mr. B.L. Gangopadhyay, counsel ORDER
Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member
1. The applicant has filed this O.A.No.1697/2018 praying for appointment under Land Losers' Scheme. The said 0.A. was dismissed for default on 11.06.2019 for non-appearance of the applicant.
2. The applicant has filed M.A.No.350/263/2022 for restoration of the O.A. by recalling the order dated 11.06.2019. He has also filed M.A.No.350/264/2022 for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration.
Having heard Learned Counsel for both sides, the M.As are allowed.
The 0.A. is restored and taken up for hearing.
3. It emerges from the record that it is the grievance of the applicant that he is the beneficiary of the Scheme for Land Losers as per RBE No.99/2010 whereby the Railway authorities have decided to grant employment assistance to one of the members of the family in lieu of the land acquired from them by giving relaxation in respect of their educational qualifications and age. The applicant made representation to the authorities praying for appointment under Land Losers' Scheme but the respondents have rejected his claim on the ground of overage and lack of requisite educational qualification at the material point of time.
i C
4. In some of the O.As the respondents rejected the case of the land losers on various grounds such as stoppage of the Project, over age , lack of requisite educational qualifications etc. Aggrieved by such non-consideration/rejection of their prayers, some similarly situated applicants approached this Tribunal by way of filing various OAs. The said OAs were disposed of by this Tribunal with a direction to the respondents to consider their claim and convey their decision by way of a speaking order.
In compliance of the said directions, the respondents have considered the claim of the applicants and the same has been rejected on various grounds including the ground that the scheme ie. RBE no. 99/2010 has been subsequently modified vide RBE 193/2019 dated 11.11.2019 whereby it was decided by the Railway Board that no more appointment will be given to the land losers.
In this regard, it is apt to mention that the said stand taken by the respondents was not accepted by this Tribunal in identical OAs on the ground that the said scheme came into force from the date of publication whereas the right of land losers in question was accrued in the year 2010- 11 in terms of RBE no. 99/2010. As such, the plea of the respondents was disapproved by judicial pronouncements and the said decision of this Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court. The said factual matrix has not been rebutted by the respondents. Therefore, the reason assigned by the respondents for rejecting the claim of the applicant does not stand.
5. Further, it is noticed that in some cases, the claim of the applicants were rejected which is not tenable in the light of the directions issued by ol! Hon'ble High Court in WPCT no. 74/2016. In other words, the claim of the applicant needs to be considered in terms of RBE 99/2010 which provides for granting relaxation in age, educational qualification, etc. by the General Manager. Undisputedly, the respondents have granted relaxation in age to similarly placed other land losers and their applications have been processed.
At this stage, it is apt to mention that this Tribunal in group of OAs such as OA no. 1313/2019 with others had passed a common order dated 16.03.2020 whereby the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the applicants, including those who are overage. The said direction was issued by this Tribunal in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High court in WPCT 74/2016. The said order was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, Further, it is appropriate to mention that the Hon'ble High Court in WPCT 28/2021 and WPCT 75/2020, by upholding the decision of this Tribunal, directed the respondents to consider the claim of the land losers by granting age relaxation in terms of RBE 99/2010 as stipulated in the observation / direction of the Hon'ble High Court's judgment passed in WPCT No. 74/2016. The respondents were granted further three months to comply with the directions of this Tribunal.
In compliance of the said direction, the respondents by granting relaxation in age to the land losers, have processed their applications for the purpose of consideration of their claim for employment assistance.
ph 5 Further, in some cases the respondents have not at all considered the representation of the applicants for grant of employment assistance in terms of RBE 99/2010.
At this stage, it is also important to mention that the benefit of the ' scheme i.e., RBE 99/2010 can be extended only to the person/candidate who falls within the definition of land losers in terms of the aforesaid scheme.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion \\, that the case of the applicants requires to be re-examined in the light of )/ what is stated hereinabove. Accordingly, we dispose of these OA with a | direction upon the respondents to re-exatnine the case of the applicants in the light of the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in WPCT no. 74/2016 as well as the order passed in WPCT 28/2021 and WPCT no. 75/2020 dated 01.07.2021 and treat the applicant equally, without being influenced by earlier impugned' speaking order passed by the respondents. The aforesaid exercise' be completed within the period ~ not later than 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this © order.
It goes without saying that the respondents will intimate their decision to the applicant expeditiously.
5. In view of the above, the OA along with the MAs stand disposed of.
No costs. _ (Jayesh V. Bhairavia) Judicial Member sb