Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Sadananda Nayak vs M/O Railways on 24 May, 2018
O.A.No.449 of 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No.449 of 2011
Cuttack this the 24th day of May, 2018
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.K.PATTNAIK, MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE DR.MRUTYUNJAY SARANGI, MEMBER(A)
Sadananda Nayak, aged about 24 years, S/o. Padan Nayak, Vill-
Amitiguda, PO/PS/Dist-Koraput
...Applicant
By the Advocate(s)-M/s.P.R.J.Dash
L.Pani
-VERSUS-
Union of India represented through:
1. The General Manager, East Coast Railway, rail Sadan,
Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda, Odisha
2. Divisional Railway manager, East Coast Railway, Waltair,
At/PO-Visakhpatnam (AP)
3. Deputy Chief Engineer (Con.), East Coast Railway,
Koraput at Visakhpatnam, At/PO-Visakhpatnam (AP)
4. Collector, Koraput, At/PO/Dist-Koraput
5. Land Acquisition Officer, Koraput, At-Collectorate
Compound, PO/Dist-Koraput
...Respondents
By the Advocate(s)-Mr.S.Barik
Mr.J.Pal, GA(State)
ORDER
DR.MRUTYUNJAY SARANGI, MEMBER(A):
The applicant claims to be a land oustee and has filed this O.A. praying for the following reliefs:
"Under the circumstances, the applicant most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dt. 12.11.2010 under Annexure-8.
And further the Respondents be directed to provide employment to the applicant as a land oustee with all consequential benefits in the establishment of 1 O.A.No.449 of 2011 East Coast Railway under the Rehabilitation policy formulated for the land displaced persons. And non-employment of the applicant in the establishment of Railway as a land loser be declared as illegal, arbitrary and without any authority of law And/or pass any other order/orders as would be deemed fit and proper".
2. The brief facts of the case, as they appear from the O.A., are as follows:
The land of the applicant's father was acquired by the East Coast Railway pursuant to the notification for construction of Railway Link between Koraput -Rayagada Railway Project in the year 1982. At the time of the acquisition of land, the applicant was a minor. The Land Acquisition Officer Koraput (Res.No.5) had passed an award in favour of Padan Nayak, the father of the applicant vide order dated 25.5.1985 towards compensation. However, the applicant's father's name was not included in the list of displaced persons to get benefit under the Rehabilitation Assistance Policy. The applicant made a representation on 19.8.2008 before the Collector, Koraput praying for a recommendation to the Railway authorities for his employment in the Railways. He also submitted a representation dated 1.9.2009 before the Divisional Railway Manager, East Coast Railway (Res.No.1) along with all the required documents (A/4 series). The applicant's representation was forwarded to the Respondent No.1 vide letter dated 19.8.2009 of the Respondent No.3. Since no action 2 O.A.No.449 of 2011 was taken, the applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa through a joint Writ Petition bearing W.P.(C) No.5394/2010. The Hon'ble High Court disposed of the said Writ Petition vide order dated 5.3.2010 which reads as follows:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
In view of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the prayer made in this writ petition can only be granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. As the Scheme in question is in relation to the East Coast Railway which speaks for employment which is relatable to 'public employment' under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act is attracted to the fact-situation. The petitioner is at liberty to file application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. If such application is filed along with an application for condonation of delay, if there is any delay, the same shall be considered keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Kameswar Prasad Singh, AIR 2000 SC 2306 and dispose of on merits as expeditiously as possible".
Accordingly the applicant filed O.A.No.437 of 2010 which was disposed of in the order dated 19.8.2010 with a direction to Respondents to consider the pending representation of the applicant within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the order. The Respondent No.1 passed theorder dated 12.11.2010 rejecting the representation of the applicant for employment assistance to him as a land oustee. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant has filed the present O.A. praying for the relief as at Para-1 above.
3 O.A.No.449 of 2011
3. The applicant has based his prayer on the ground that there is no dispute to the fact that part of the land belonging to his father was acquired by the East Coast Railways for construction of the Railway Link between Koraput-Rayagada Project belonging to his father. Other similarly situated persons who were land oustees from the same village have got employment under the Rehabilitation Policy whereas the applicant who is a legal heir of Padan Naik, the land oustee, has been deprived of the same. This action of the respondents is discriminatory and illegal. Money alone cannot be an adequate compensation for acquisition of agricultural land and therefore, providing employment is a just and fair demand. The Railways have made a number of promises to the land oustees that they will be provided employment, but such promises have not been carried out in the case of the applicant. The instructions/circulars under A/9 have statutory force and employment should be provided as per stipulations therein. The applicant and other family members lost their livelihood due to the land acquisition and therefore, the applicant should be granted employment on par with other land oustees who have got similar benefit from the Railways. The applicant also challenges the contention of the Railways that recruitment to the land oustees has already been completed in the year 1995. The applicant has claimed that had the land continued with his father's family he would have got income from it for all the 4 O.A.No.449 of 2011 intervening years. Therefore, at this stage also the applicant should be given employment assistance by the Railways. Denial of the same is a violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. The Respondents in the counter reply filed on 17.7.2017 have categorically denied the claim of the applicant. They have submitted that the applicant's father had a land to the extent of 12.60 cents in Khata No.07 which was acquired by the Railways for Koraput-Rayagada Rail Link. The Railways had acquired the land through the State Government. The applicant submitted his application only in September, 2009 after a lapse of 27 years. The Additional District Magistrate, Koraput who was dealing with the cases of land oustees had recommended 1346 candidates for extending employment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme to the land oustess. Neither the applicant nor his father's name was placed in the list of candidates forwarded by the District Collector, Koraput. A duly constituted Screening Committee comprising of three officers (two from Railways and one from the State Government) could not consider the case of the applicant since his name was not in the list forwarded by the District Collector. The Railway Board under Letter No.E(NG)/II/82/RC.1/95 dated 31.12.1982/01.01.1983 communicated under Estt.Srl.No.322/87 has clearly stipulated that the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme is limited to the first recruitment or within a 5 O.A.No.449 of 2011 period of two years after the acquisition of land whichever is later. The project was completed in the year 1995 and the applicant submitted a representation much beyond the two years limit from the completion of the project. The recruitment for land lustees had been completed in the year 1990. Therefore, the representation of the applicant was rejected by the Respondent No.1 vide order dated 12.11.2010. It is the respondents' contention that the present O.A. is barred by limitation since the applicant claims relief much after the period stipulated for grant of employment. The respondents also claim that the O.A. filed by the applicant lacks merit and should be dismissed.
5. The matter was heard on 17.4.2018. The learned counsels for both the parties submitted their argument. The issue to be decided in the present O.A. is whether the applicant is entitled to employment in the Railways on the ground of being a son of a land oustee.
6. Records show that 12.60 cents of land of applicant's father was acquired by the Railways for the construction of Koraput - Rayagada Rail Link for which the applicant had received monetary compensation. The Railways had simultaneously prepared a scheme for rehabilitation of the land oustees. The applicant was not even born at the time of acquisition of land. Records show that on 19.8.2009 the applicant had submitted a representation to the Collector, 6 O.A.No.449 of 2011 Koraput District praying for an employment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. The grievance petition of the applicant was forwarded to the DRM, Waltair, East Coast Railways on 19.8.2009 for further necessary action. The applicant had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P. © No.5394/2010 for a direction to the Railways to grant him the necessary relief. However, the Hon'ble High Court had disposed of the Writ Petition on the ground that the C.A.T. has jurisdiction over the matter. Thereafter, the O.A.No.437/10 filed by the applicant was disposed of by this Tribunal on 19.8.2010 with the following direction.
"Accordingly, without going into the merit of the case, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the pending representation of the applicant as at Page-15 to the O.A. within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, taking into account the recommendations of the District Authorities and pass a reasoned order under intimation to the applicant".
7. In pursuance of the order of this Tribunal, the D.R.M., East Coast Railways has passed the impugned order dated 12.11.2010 in which it was stated that the A.D.M., Koraput District had recommended 1346 candidates for extending employment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme to the land losers of the Koraput-Rayagada Rail Link Project and neither the applicant's name nor his father's name was in the list of candidates forwarded by the District Collector, Koraput. It was also mentioned that an amount of Rs.17,189.78 was paid 7 O.A.No.449 of 2011 as compensation to the applicant's father Padan Naik as per order issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Koraput. The D.R.M. has quoted the Railway Board's letter No.E(NG) 11/82/RC.1/85 dated 31.12.1982 communicated under Estt.Srl.No.332/87 by which Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme is limited to the first recruitment or within a period of two years after the acquisition of land whichever is later. The Project was completed in the year 1995 whereas the applicant had represented for employment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in the year 2009. Hence the representation dated 1.9.2009 of the applicant was rejected. The applicant has filed the present O.A. aggrieved by this rejection.
8. From the records filed in the O.A. by the applicant and respondents, it is clear that the Railways have issued instructions from time to time for providing job to the land oustees whose land was acquired by the Railways. It appears that Estt. Srl.no.322/87 dated 24.11.1987 communicated the copy of letter No.E(NG)11/82/RC1/95 dated 31.12.1981/1.1.1983 wherein the guidelines for providing employment in Group C or Group IV posts in their organization including engagement of casual labour and giving them preferential treatment for such employment were issued. In the Estt.Srl.No.311/87 dated 3.12.1987 further clarifications were issued followed by RBE No.279/89 dated 10.11.1989 and Estt.Srl.No.297/89 dated 18.12.1989.
8 O.A.No.449 of 2011
9. While it is considered necessary on the part of the Railways to provide employment to the eligible land oustees and the claims for such rehabilitation are formulated and implemented from time to time, such claims cannot be open- ended. Land oustess or their legal heirs cannot claim employment as a matter of right after many years of the acquisition of land and long after the Project comes to a closure. Keeping this in mind, Estt.Srl.No.322/87 dated 24.11.1987 annexed by the applicant under Annexure-9 series to the O.A. has laid down certain conditions regarding employment for the land oustees or their immediate family members. The relevant extract from the Estt.Srl.no.322/87 is reproduced hereunder.
"2. The zonal Railways and production Units and also project authorities may consider applications received from persons displaced on account of large scale acquisition of land for projects on the Railways for employment of the displaced persons, or his son/daughter or wife for employment in Group C or Group IV posts in their organization including engagement of casual labour and given them preferential treatment for such employment, subject to the following conditions:
1. The individual concerned should have been displaced himself or he should be the son/daughter/ward/wife of a person displaced from land on account of acquisition of the land by the Railways for the Project.
2. Only one job on such preferential treatment should be offered to one family.
3. This dispensation should be limited to recruitments made from outside in direct recruitment categories and to 9 O.A.No.449 of 2011 the first recruitment or within a period of two years after the acquisition of the land whichever is later".
10. The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa while disposing of the W.P.(C) No.5394/2010 vide judgment dated 5.3.2010 had observed that the petitioner is at liberty to file application before the Central Administrative Tribunal and if such an application is filed along with an application for condonation of delay, if there is any, the same shall be considered keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Kameswar Prasad Singh (AIR 2000 SC 2306) and disposed of on merit. The applicant has not filed any application for condonation of delay. Rather, in Paragraph-3 of the O.A. he has declared that the application is within the limitation prescribed in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
11. In the verification part at the end of the O.A., , the applicant has stated that he was about 24 years at the time of filing of this O.A. in the year, 2011. From this, it is clear that the applicant had attained the status of major in the year 2005. As per Estt.Srl.no.322/87 as quoted above, dispensation is limited to recruitments made from outside in direct recruitment categories and to the first recruitment or within a period of two years after the acquisition of the land whichever is later. The applicant agitated his grievance for the first time in the year 2008 by filing representation dated 19.8.2008 to the Collector, 10 O.A.No.449 of 2011 Koraput and subsequently to the Divisional Manager, East Coast Railway vide his representation dated 1.9.2009 praying for Rehabilitation Assistance which is after 3 - 4 years of attaining status of a major. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the project was completed in the year 1995 and therefore, the application submitted by the applicant is grossly barred by limitation. We have gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar vs. Kameswar Prasad Singh (supra). Rehabilitation Assistance is an administrative scheme and rehabilitation to the land oustees can only be considered within the specific time frame and cannot be an open-ended scheme. Therefore, while the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kameswar Prasad case is the guiding principle for condonation of delay, the same cannot be applicable for consideration of the case of the applicant when the project was completed in the year 1995 and all eligible persons were considered and given appointment as part of the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. The applicant who was around 8 years of age in 1995 has no legal right to claim employment under Rehabilitation Scheme after a gap of 14 years.
12. We have examined the claim of the applicant. It is obvious that neither he nor his father had been included in the list of eligible persons for employment recommended by the District 11 O.A.No.449 of 2011 Collector, Koraput after the land acquisition for the Koraput- Rayagada Rail Link Project. The applicant was 8 years when the project came to a close in 1995. His claim for rehabilitation assistance could not have been kept as an open-ended right till he attained the age of a major. As per the records enclosed by the applicant he has made a representation to the Collector, Koraput after a gap of 14 years after the project was completed in the year 1995. It is a belated claim and seriously affected by limitation. We therefore conclude that the O.A. is devoid of merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.
(DR.MRUTYUNJAY SARANGI) (S.K.PATTNAIK) MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J) BKS 12 O.A.No.449 of 2011
Pre-delivery order in O.A.No.449 of 2011 is placed below for kind perusal and concurrence.
MEMBER(A) HON'BLE MEMBER(J) 13