Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Anup Kumar Dutta vs S E Railway on 23 September, 2022
\ g CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA
0.A/1348/2018 | Date of Order: 23.09.2022 MA/662/2018 . CS Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member Hon'ble Dr. (Ms.) Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member
1. Anup Kumar Dutta, son of Basudeb Dutta, aged about 42 years, by Occupation "Unemployed, residing at village and Post Office-Guir, District: Burdwan, PIN- 713423, Weet Bengal.
2. BasudebDutta, son of Late Dhannonjoy Dutta, aged about 74 years, by Occupation -Unemployed, residing at Village and Post Office-Guir, District-Burdwan, PIN- 713423, West Bengal
--Applicants
-VERSUS
1. Union of India, service through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach Kolkata-700043.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager (P), South eastern Railway Adra Divison, Adra, -723121.
3. The Sr. Divisional Personnel 'Officer, South Eastern Railway Adra Divison, Adra,-723121.
4.Competent ~ Authority/LA & Dy. Chief Engineer/Construction/GRC, Bowaichandi-Arambagh New . Railway Line Project, Seherabazar Railway Station, Seharabazar, Burdwan, 713423.
--Respondents.
For The Applicant(s): Mr. A. Chakraborty, counsel Ms. P. Mondal, counsel | Fe: The Respondent(s): None . ORDER(ORAL Per: Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Member The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the | Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following relief:-
pA Ata, ge ot a, Geng "A} Offies Oxder No. SER/P-ADA/Rectt/Land Loser'ARD datel 81.05.2016 issued by the The Sy. Divisional Personnel Officer, South Rastorn Railway, Adra THvison is not tenable in the aye of law and as such the same may be quashed.
B) An Order do issue directing the respondents to appoint the applicant No. 1 in Group'D past under the railway under the Land Losers eategory at an early date. 7 ©) Leave may be gr anted to add the another applicant jointly in the Original application under Rule 4 (8) (a) of the CAT Proved ure rule,"
9, Heard Ld. Counsel for the applicant.
As none appears for the respondents deapite notice, Rule 16 () of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 is invoked. | 3, M.A 662/ 2018 has been filed by the applicants praying for Hberty to. pursue this O.A joimtly on gr srounds of commonality 'of interes 7 and, on pursuance of a common cause of action. On being satisfied that the -- applicants do share a common grievance and are pursuing a common cause of action, the M.A is allowed subject to payment of individual court fees. The M.A is disposed of accordingly.
4. Ld. counsel for the applicant would submit that the land belonging to Applicant no. 2, , had been acquired by the respondent authorities 'for . the pur pose of construction of Bowalchandi-Ar ambagh New Broadgage Railway Line Project § in aceordance with the 8.Q. ne. 1 1009(E) notifie ation dated 04.05.2010, it Was further provided im RBE§ 99) 2070, that, land losers would be called for appointment : in the backgr ound of acquisition of their land for cmatruction of Railway project. The applicant no. 1 was duly called for | screening during the year 201d as per the scheme formulated in RBE 99/2010 "appointment of land losers affected by land acquisition for railway projects". | | As the. respondents have not offered any appointment to the:
applicant no. 1, despite such stresning, the applicants have approached this Tribunal praying for the aforementioned relief.
5B, The applicant had approached this Tribunal in the first round tigation. in. O.A 645/2014 and other batch cases which 'Tribunal had disposed vide its order datéd 20.1 1.20 15 with the following orders:
"The authorities concerned shall do well to consider the case of the applicants, . Strictly in aecordance with the scheme "appointment of land losers affected by : : | land acquisition for railway projects" RBE{(99/2010} and intimate the result of such' | consideration to each of the applicants by a speaking order within a period of three months, fram the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
The respondent authorities, thereafter, in compliance with the arder dated 20.11.2015, had issued a speaking order dated 21.05.2016 primarily re eretting the prayer of the applicant on svound of overage.
6. La. counsel for the applicant would very fairly submit that, the Hon'ble Hi gh Court, in WPCT 74/2016 Gakshman Chandra Bhandary we and Ors vs. Yop had directed the Railway authorities to offer | appointments to the petitioners therein wpe waiver of the overage of the aspiring candidates.
7. Ld. counsel for the applicant would, therefore, pray that the applicants would be provided with liberty of approaching the authorities - amee again with judicial decisions in support so as to file a comprehensive representation, and, would urge for directions "pon. the respondents ta consider and dispose of the same in a time bound manner. :
8. Accordingly, the O.A is disposed of with Hberty to the applicant to prefer a comprehensive representation citing judicial decisions in support, 4 within a period of 4 weeks froxn the date of receipt of a capy of this order. If so received, the addressee competent respondent authority shall examine such representation in accordance with law, and issue appropriate orders within 6 weeks thereafter, and convey 'his decision in the form of a reasoned and speaking order and in the light of judicial | decisions cited therein, | In the event the applicant's claim is found to be justified, consequent benefits shall be sanctioned within 4 period: of 4 weeks. thereafter.
9, | It is made clear that we have hot entered into the merits of the matter and all issues are left open to be decided by the respondents in.
accordance with law,
10. © With these directions, the O.A. is disposed of. There will be ne orders on costs.
ae a . ex 7 : ; , (Nandita Chatterjee) mo Gr. dayeah V. Bhairavi a} Member (A) Member 8) i !