Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
M P Mahesh Kumar vs M/O Railways on 16 June, 2025
1 OA 1467/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/01467/2017
Dated, the 16th day of June, Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR.M.SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)
&
HON'BLE MR.SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (A)
1.M.P.Mahesh Kumar,
No.26, Murugesan Street,
Muthurangam Block,
Jafferkhanpet, Chennai 600 003.
2.Smt.P.Thangamani
No.26, Murugesan Street,
Muthurangam Block,
Jafferkhanpet,Chennai 600 003. ... Applicants
By Advocate .. M/s.K.P.Gopalakrishnan
Vs
1.Union of India,
Rep., by its Secretary,
Ministry of Railways,
New Delhi.
2.The General Manager,
Headquarters-Southern Railway,
Park Town, Chennai 600 003. ... Respondents
By Advocate ... Mr.M.T.Arunan
2 OA 1467/2017
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr.Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member(A)) The applicants have filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"To quash the order passed by the 2 nd respondent dated 18.05.2017 and direct the respondents to provide suitable employment to the 1st Applicant as per the G.O.No.E(NG)/II/2010/RC-5/1 and pass such other/orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, proper and thus render justice."
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicants are as follows:
The 1st applicant is the son of the 2 nd applicant. The 2nd applicant was the owner of the property situated at Pallikaranai Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District comprised in S.No.724/3B to an extent of 2400 Sq.ft., registered as sale deed document No.2102 of 1991. The said land was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of construction of EMU Car Shed to MRTS Railway to be undertaken by the Southern Railways under the Ministry of Railways and passed Award No.1/2007 dated 28.09.2007. The 2nd applicant got compensation by an order dated 12.10.2011 made in L.A.O.P.No.7/2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tambaram. In the mean time, Government Order dated 16.07.2010, vide Ref. No.E(NG)/11/2010/RC-5/1 was circulated by the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) inviting applications from the land losers affected by land acquisition for appointment in Railway Projects.
The 2nd applicant filed application on behalf of the 1 st applicant for 3 OA 1467/2017 employment under the above G.O. Even after several representations by the 2nd applicant, there was no avail and hence the applicants herein filed MA 825/2014 in OA 1814/2014 the applicant has approached this Tribunal, wherein this Tribunal, vide order dated 01.12.2014 directed the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation of the applicants and the respondents by order dated 18.02.2015 rejected the claim of the applicants. Aggrieved, the applicants again filed OA 655/2015 and vide order dated 12.01.2017, the said OA was allowed by this Tribunal holding that the notification dated 16.07.2010 is squarely applicable to the case of the applicant and they are entitled to the benefit flowing from the said notification and directing the respondents to consider the application of the applicants dated 01.12.2010 and to pass orders in the light of the notification dated 16.07.2010. Again by order dated 18.05.2017 the respondents rejected the claim of the applicants and being aggrieved the applicants have filed the present OA seeking the afore said relief.
3. After notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and filed their reply statement refuting all the averments made in the OA except those which are admitted on facts. 3.1 The respondents submitted that the land measuring about 224.04 Sq.Mtrs in Survey No.724/3B at Pallikaranai Village was acquired on 28.09.2007 from Sri.M.Paramanantham, father of the applicant Shri.P.Magesh Kumar for Mass Rapid Transport System Electrical Multiple Unit Car Shed. Thereafter, a sum of Rs. 1.91,291/-as per Cq. No.549795 4 OA 1467/2017 dt. 24.10.2008 deposited in the Hon'ble Court was released as compensation after the dispute regarding the ownership and compensation ordered to Smt. Thangamani W/o. Sri.M.Paramanantham vide the Hon'ble Sub.Judge/ Tambaram's judgement in LAOP No.7/2010 on 12.10.2011. Further, as per para 8 of Board's letter on this subject dt. 16.07.2010, appointment to land losers will not normally be applicable in those cases where land acquisition process has been concluded by way of possession of land by Railways. In this case, the land measuring about 224.04 Sq.Mtrs in Survey No.724/3B at Pallikaranai Village was acquired on 28.09.2007 from Sri.M.Paramanandham, father of the applicant. In as much as the land was acquired during 2007 and compensation has been paid, the applicant's entitlement to be considered for appointment as land losers does not arise.
3.2 Accordingly, as per the directions of this Tribunal, his representation has been considered and replied rightly as under:-
"Thus, in the light of various implementational hurdles brought out, Board are deliberating on review of policy of appointment to land losers affected by land acquisition for railway projects vide letter dated 16.07.2010.So far, no appointment has been offered by this Railway to any of the land losers.
Further, government Of India has also introduced "The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, (Act No.30/2013) dt.27/09/13" laying down 5 OA 1467/2017 different sets of compensation for land being acquired for various projects. Since this Act has come after the issue of Board's policy letter dated. 16/07/2010, the Railway Board are re-visiting the policy of appointment to Land Losers and therefore, the request for appointment of the applicant's in this O.A. on the basis of land acquired for Mass Rapid Transport System Electrical Multiple Unit Car Shed, cannot be considered favourably, at this stage."
3.3 The respondents drew our attention to the reply given by them for similar claims from similarly situated persons, wherein also they have stated that such claims could not be considered favourably. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. The applicants have filed an additional typed set wherein they have enclosed the Notification dated 03.11.2015 of the Southern Railways with regard to Medical examination of candidates proposed to be appointed in Railways by way of compassionate ground/losers-relaxation in medical condition; List dated 14.03.2022 of candidates called for Document Verification for appointment as Land Losers and Notification dated 05.05.2023 regarding Medical Examination of candidates proposed to be appointed in Railways by way of compassionate ground/losers-relaxation in medical condition. In support of their contentions, the applicants have relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anil Kumar Vs. Union of India, dated 22.02.2019 and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 08.08.2023 in OA 97/2021.
5. The respondents in support of their contentions have relied upon 6 OA 1467/2017 the judgment of the Hon. High Court of Madras in WP Nos.28805 to 28808 of 2017 dated 04.11.2022.
5. Heard M/s.L.P.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr.M.T.Arunan, learned Standing counsel for the respondents, gone through their submissions and perused the material placed on record.
6. This is the second round of litigation. In the first round, OA 655/2015 filed by the applicant was allowed by this Tribunal observing that the notification dated 16.07.2010 is squarely applicable to the case of the applicants and they are entitled to the benefit flowing from the said notification and directed the respondents to pass a suitable order afresh on the application of the applicant dated 01.12.2010. The relevant portion of the order in OA 655/2015 dated 12.01.2017 is extracted as under:-
"The applicants could not be deprived of the benefits under the notification dated 16.07.2010 merely because their land was acquired earlier to the date of notification as the process had not been concluded by that date. In such view of the matter, the notification dated 16.07.2010 is squarely applicable to the case of the applicants and they are entitled to the benefit flowing from the said notification. The respondents are accordingly directed to consider the application of the applicants dated 01.12.2010 and pass a suitable order afresh in the light of the notification dated 16.07.2010 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this observation, the OA is allowed. No order as to costs."
This order was accepted by the respondents as no appeal has been filed against the said order.
7. In consequence of the order of the CAT, an order was passed by the General Manager, i.e., the second respondent on 18.05.2017 which is extracted as under:-
7 OA 1467/2017
"The land measuring about 200 Sq.Mtrs in Survey No.724/38 at Pallikaranai Village was acquired on 28.09.2007 from Srl. M. Paramanandham, father of the applicant, Shri. P. Magesh Kumar for MRTS EMU Car Shed. Thereafter, a sum of Rs.1,91,291/ was released as compensation vide the Hon'ble Sub.Judge/Tambaram's judgement in LAOP No.7/2010 on 12.10.2011.
As per Para 8 of Board's letter, on this subject dt. 16.07.2010, appointment to land losers will not normally be applicable in those cases where land acquisition process has been concluded by way of possession of land by Railways. In this case, in as much as land was acquired during 2007, the applicant's entitlement to be considered for appointment as land losers does not arise. The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa order in WP(C)5102/2013 dt. 14.05.2014 referred by the applicants in the OA is specific to the parties therein with reference to the circumstances in that case and the policy envisaged in Railway Board's letter dated 16.07.2010 has not been revised. The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa order in WP (C) No. 19622/2010 dt. 17.08.2011 pertains to NALCO which does not come under the purview of the Railway Ministry and hence no remarks.
Indian Railways are executing several projects throughout the length and breadth of the country which involves acquiring large tracts of land for implementing various projects. After the issue of policy letter dated 16.07.2010 for appointment on land losers account, large number of applications have been received in Railway Board from various Zonal offices and also in Construction Project offices seeking appointment under this criteria.
The Zonal Railways are facing implementation problems after the issue of policy circular dated 16.07.2010. Difficulties being experienced are as follows:-
1) Land holding in most part of the country is highly fragmented and even where small areas of land are acquired, there are many claimants for appointment.
2) Because of the above factor, the number of appointment cases, which come up for consideration are very large than what Railway, as Department, can offer.
3) There are cases, where a particular family has surrendered large tract of land and they are eligible for appointment under land losers scheme as per policy letter dated 16.07.2010 and there are cases, where a family has surrendered only a few cents of land and they also becoming eligible for claiming appointment.
Thus, in the light of various implementational hurdles brought out, Board are deliberating on review of policy of appointment to land losers affected by land acquisition for railway projects vide letter dated 16.07.2010. So far, no appointment has been offered by this Railway to any of the land losers.
Further, Government of India has also introduced "The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (Act No.30/2013) dt. 27/09/13" laying down different sets of compensation for land being acquired for various projects. Since this Act has come after the issue of Board's 8 OA 1467/2017 policy letter dated. 16/07/2010, the Railway Board are re-visiting the policy of appointment to Land Losers and therefore, the request for appointment of the applicant's in this O.A. on the basis of land acquired for MRTS EMU Car Shed, cannot be considered favourably, at this stage." (emphasis supplied) The said order dated 18.05.2017 has been challenged in the present OA.
8. The respondents have sought to justify their actions for the following reasons:
(i)The land losers policy was normally not applicable when land acquisition process have been completed,
(ii)That the total land acquired was only 224.04 Sq.M.,
(iii)Fair compensation has been paid,
(iv)That the Ernakulam Bench of the CAT, the Hon. Madras High Court in WP 16133-16136/2016 as also the Madras Bench of CAT in OA 655/15 in the case of the applicant had directed to pass suitable orders for reconsidering of the material which was done and a speaking order was passed by the Chairman Railway Board/General Manager, Southern Railway,
(v)The letter of the Railway Board dated 11.11.2019 whereby the policy regarding priority employment of land losers was withdrawn by the Ministry of Railway, Government of India,
(vi) Decision of the Hon. Madras High Court in WP 28805-28808/2017,
(vii)It has been submitted that no person has been offered appointment from land losers category.
9. We observe that in the land losers policy dated 16.07.2010, there 9 OA 1467/2017 is no mention of the minimum size of land on acquisition of which the land loser will be eligible for appointment in the Railways. This is accepted by the respondents themselves in their order dated 18.05.2017 where they mention that this is one of the hurdles in implementation of the policy. Similarly, the land losers policy did not exclude persons who had been paid fair compensation for the land. It was a beneficial measure introduced as a social justice action by the Government and was in addition to any compensation that would have been paid.
10. The argument of the respondents that in the case of the applicant land acquisition process had been completed before the policy was introduced and therefore the applicant may not be eligible for the benefits cannot be accepted in view of the fact that this Tribunal in OA 655/2015 had dealt with the very same question and held that the applicant was eligible as the process was not complete. The respondents have not appealed against the said order and it has become final. As can be seen from the order passed by the General Manager dated 18.05.2017 in compliance with the CAT order in OA 655/2015 the application of the applicant has not been rejected. It has only been mentioned that it cannot be implemented at that stage, as the Board is deliberating on review of the policy of the appointment of land losers. While such an order of the respondents to postpone consideration of the application of the applicant for reasons of revisiting the policy can be argued to be against the letter and spirit of the order of this Tribunal in OA 655/2015, it can be deduced from the Railway Board letter dated 10 OA 1467/2017 11.11.2019 whereby the policy of land losers was withdrawn, that the applicant still remains eligible for consideration for appointment as a land loser. This is so because the said letter dated 11.11.2019 in Para 5 categorically mentions that this policy shall be effective from the date of issue of that letter. Therefore the land losers policy revised vide letter dated 11.11.2019 is prospective in nature and does not apply to earlier cases where acquisition was made before this date. The decision of the Single Bench of the Hon. Madras High Court in WP 28805-28808 relied upon by the respondents proceeds on the fact that the Railways had withdrawn the policy of providing priority to land losers in employment. However, since that policy is applicable prospectively and the case of the applicant pertains to a period prior to the withdrawal, we beg to differ from the decision as the fact that withdrawal of policy of 16.07.2010 vide letter dated 11.11.2019 was prospective in nature has not been considered in the judgment.
11. We further observe that in the decision in OA 97/2021 dated 08.08.2023 before the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal it was held that a person whose land was acquired before 11.11.2019 though he applied for employment only in 2020 would also be eligible for priority employment under the land losers policy of 2010. The decision of the Hyderabad Bench of CAT in OA 97/2021 further observes as under:
"24. Now, the Railways cannot take the stand that the said scheme has been discontinued with effect from November 2019, where new RBE No.193/2019, dated 11.11.2019 was issued, wherein a lump sum payment of Rs.5 lakhs was provided to the affected families who were primarily dependent on acquired land for livelihood, i.e., cases where their 11 OA 1467/2017 livelihood is affected by such acquisition or where entire land holding of the affected family have been acquired. The said RBE No.193/2019 also says that this policy shall be effective from the date of issue of this letter. Inasmuch as the applicants land was taken prior to the issue of this RBE No.193/2019 and at the time of acquisition of land, the relevant Railway Circular contained in RBE No.99/2010, dated 16.07.2010, is applicable to the present case, which does not distinguish between land losers and project displaced families and also because this RBE No.99/2010, dated 16.07.2010, does not have a deadline or a time limit by which the land owners will have to apply for the job, the Railways cannot now take the stand that the applicant has applied only in 2020 by which time a new notification dated 11.11.2019 has come into place abolishing the scheme. In fact, the opening lines of RBE.No.99/2010 states that "in supersession of all previous instructions on the subject, it has been decided that the Railways may call and consider applications for employment to PB-1 Pay Band of Rs.5,200- 20,200/- with Grade Pay of Rs.1,800/- only, from land losers on account of acquisition of land for the projects on the Railways (excluding those for Deposit works), and the applications shall be invited by the Personnel Branch of Zonal Railways from the land losers fulfilling the screening criteria as enumerated in Para (2) below". Therefore, a duty is cast upon the respondent-Railways to have invited such applications from project displaced persons. The applicant has clearly mentioned at the time of his land acquisition that he wants his child to be given an employment and now a duty is cast on the part of the respondents to invite his application and examine the same with reference to the eligibility criteria contained in RBE No.99/2010, dated 16.07.2010. They failed to do so. Therefore, the contention of the respondent-Railways in their reply statement that the applicants are not affected by land loss and such employment is only to the people affected or project displaced persons is untenable, because such a distinction has not been made in RBE No.99/2010, dated 16.07.2010, which only refers to "land losers".
25. The learned counsel for the Applicants in his written submissions has cited the Order of the Coordinate Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal dated 13.03.2020 in OA.No.260/709/2014, and submitted that following the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Cuttack in W.P.(C) No.5102/2013, dated 14.05.2014 in Krushna Chandra Nayak v. The Railway Board, the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal allowed the OA, wherein also similar land losers have been benefited by their orders and they have been asked to be given job by the respondent-Railways.
26. The learned counsel for the Respondent-Railways in his written submissions has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 22.02.2019 in Civil Appeal No.1958/2019 ( SLP © No.32810/2018 ) in Anil Kumar v. Union of India & Others, in support of his contentions. However, a careful reading of the above judgment, it is seen that the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court only supports the case of the applicant. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under: "For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High court dated 3 January 2018. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in consequence, we direct that the claim of the appellant for appointment to a Group 'D' post shall be implemented within 12 OA 1467/2017 a period of two months from today by granting age relaxation, if required."
27. The learned counsel for the Respondent-Railways also cited the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in LPA.No.1929/2016 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.25313/2013 dated 03.01l.2018 and Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.774/2018 dated 16.01.2018, and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Butu Prasad Khumbhar & Others v. Steel Autority of India Limited &Others (1995 SCC Supl.(2) 225/1995 SCALE (2) 539). On a careful reading of the above judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Patna and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find that the facts and circumstances in the above cases are different and the same are not relevant to the facts in the instant case.
28. In view of the above position, we allow this OA by setting aside the impugned order dated 20.10.2020, and direct the respondents to provide employment to the Applicant No.2 as a land loser within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs."
12. It is worthwhile to note that in the decision in Civil Appeal No.3030-3044/2019 in Union of India Vs. Shankar Prasad Deep etc., the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of land losers went on to observe as under:-
"As a matter of fact, the policy which has been formulated by the Ministry of Railways contemplates that as land acquisition is done through the civil authorities, the village sarpanch or tehsildar should be associated with the verification of the claim of the oustees. Placing the entire burden on the land oustees would result in a deprivation of the benefit of the policy. Having laid down a salutary policy, it is necessary, in our view, that the Ministry of Railways must coordinate its activities with the local administration so as to ensure due verification of the claims made by the applicants.
Consequently, we direct that, notwithstanding the earlier rejection of the claims of 2,153 land oustees, steps should be taken for re- verification of all the claims of persons who were rejected in the past. Sufficient opportunity shall be granted to them to submit applications afresh along with requisite certificates. We direct that fresh applications be called within a period of three months. An advertisement shall be issued for that purpose with due publicity in the area.........The railway administration shall pro-actively engage with the State administrative machinery in ensuring proper verification of all claims.
Applicants would be entitled to an age relaxation of 15 years. The applications of other land oustees apart from 2,153 land oustees reflected in the tabulated chart shall also be duly considered by the 13 OA 1467/2017 Divisional Manager."
Though these observations were in respect of policy of land losers other than the one brought about by Railway Board letter dated 16.07.2010, it emphasises the duty cast upon the authorities when a salutary policy concerning social justice has been formulated.
13. The respondents have claimed that they have not made any offer of appointment to any land losers. However, the applicants have provided a list dated 14.03.2022 showing persons who had been called for document verification as part of employment for appointment as land losers by the South-Eastern Railway. While we are not aware whether Southern Railway has also offered any appointment to land losers, Railways being an All India organisation under the Railway Board governed by the Railway Board policies/rules, Zones being only Administrative units for convenience, implementation of the policies have to be uniform across all zones of Railways. Any deviation from such uniformity would amount to discrimination.
14. In view of our observations above including the decision of this Tribunal in OA 655/2015, which has not been appealed against by the Respondents, the withdrawal of land losers policy of 16.07.2010 only on 11.2019 with a specific mention that it is applicable only from the date of the letter, and the fact that Railways are implementing the policy of 16.07.2010 in other Zones (as evident from the document verification list of South-Eastern Railways as on 14.03.2022), we are of the 14 OA 1467/2017 considered opinion that the applicant is required to be offered appointment under the land losers policy of 16.07.2010. The respondents are therefore, directed to offer appointment to the applicant under the land losers policy of 16.07.2010, if found eligible by the Screening Committee. The respondents are further directed to grant age relaxation to the applicant, if necessary. The respondents shall complete the said exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
15. The OA is allowed. No order as to costs.
(SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA) (M.SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER (J)
MT 16.06.2025