Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Sk Sahajan vs South Eastern Railway on 22 September, 2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ; KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA = Paew 1 1077/22, 1078/22, 1079/22, 1080/22 , 1093/22, 1104/22, 1105/22, 1106/22, 1107/22, 1094/22, i. 1095/22, 1096/22 Date of Order: 22.09.2022 Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member Hon'ble Dr. (Ms.) Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member (4} 0.A./350/01077/2022 (2) 0.A./350/01078/2022 (3) 0.A./350/01079/2022 - (4) 0.A./350/01080/2022 Sk. Sahajan, son of Sk. Abdul Malek, aged about 63 years, residing at Village- Godaibal Bar, PO & PS- Nandigram, District- Purba Medinipur, West Bengal, Pin-721631. Rejaul Mallik, sonf of Raju Mallik, aged about 41 years, residing at Village Dhanya Khola, PO- Nandigram, PS- Nandigram, District- Purba Medinipur, West Bengal, Pin- 721631. Sk. Monjurul Hossain, son of Sk. Najimuddin, aged about 43 years, residing at Village and PO- Rajaram Chak, PS- Nandigram, District- Purba Medinipur, West Bengal, Pin-721631. Sk. Sabir, son of Sk. Abdul Soban, aged about 37 years, residing at Village- Tara Chand Board, PO & PS- Nandigram, District- | Purba Medinipur, West Bengal, Pin-721631. Mah -- a en eres \ 1077/22, 1078/22, 1079/22, 1080/22 , 1093/22, 1104/22, 1105/22, 1106/22, 1107/22, 1094/22, " : 1095/22, 1096/22 a (5) 0.A./350/01093/2022 Sk. Sahid Alam, son of Sk. Rabiul Islam, aged about 29 years, residing at Village & PO- Kendamari, PS- Nandigram, District- Purba Medinipur, West Bengal, Pin-721631. (6) 0.A./350/01094/2022 _ . Sk. Saddam Hossen, son of Sk. Rejaul Islam, aged about 30 years, residing at Village- Gopimohanpur, PO- Rajaram Chak, PS- Nandigram, District- Purba' Medinipur, West Bengal, Pin-721631. (7) 0.A./350/01095/2022 Sk. Atiar Rahaman, son of Sk. Abul Kalam, aged about 34 years, residing at _---Village- Hossainpur, PO- Rajaramchuk, PS- Nandigram, District- Purba Medinipur, West Bengal, Pin-721631. (8) 0.A./350/01096/2022 Sahrab Mallik, son of Late Based Mallik, aged about 56 years, residing at Village- Dhanya Khola, PO- Nandigram, PS- Nandigram, District- Purba Medinipur, West Bengal, Pin- 721631. (9) 0.A./350/01104/2022 Sk. Julficker Ali, son of Sk. Mahammad Ali, aged about 33 years, residing at Village & PO-Kendamari Jalpi, PS- Nandigram, District- Purba Medinipur, West Bengal, Pin-721631. ho -- 3 1077/22, 1078/22, 1079/22, 1080/22 , 1093/22, 1104/22, 1105/22, 1106/22, 1107/22, 1094/22, s o 1095/22, 1096/22 (10) 0.A./350/01105/2022 Sekh Hapijul, Son of Sekh Rabiul, aged about 33 years, residing at Village- Narghat URF Sripatiganj, PO- Nanghat, PS- Chandipur, District- Purba Medinipur, West Bengal, Pin- 721633. . (11) 0.A./350/01106/2022 Sk. Murselim, son of Sk. Phakir, aged about 29 years, residing at Village & PO- Kendamari, PS- Nandigram, District- Purba Medinipur, West Bengal, Pin-721631. (12) 0.A./350/01107/2022 Sk. Mossarraf Hossain, son of Sk. Harej Uddin, aged about 45 years, residing at Village and Post Office- Kendiamari, PS- Nandigram, District- Purba Medinipur, West Bengal, Pin- 721631. Vs. 1. Union of India, through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata- 700043. 2. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur __ Division, PO +PS-. . Kharagpur, Dist.- Paschim Medinipur, Pin-721301. beseesees Respondents IA a 4 a _ 1077/22, 1078/22, 1079/22, 1080/22 , 1093/22, 1104/22, 1105/22, 1106/22, 1107/22, 1094/22, _ . 1095/22, 1096/22 For The Applicant(s): Mr. A. Chakraborty, Counsel -- Ms. P. Mondal, Counsel For The Respondent(s): Mr. A. K. Chattopadhyay, Counsel (in OA 1077/2022, OA 1078/2022, OA 1079/2022, OA 1080/2022, OA 1093/2022 and OA 1094/2022) ORDER (ORAL)
got Per: Hon'ble Dr. (Ms.) Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member 6 s: a 8 e The applicants have approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Act, 1985, to pursue their claim for appointment in lieu of acquisition of their land for construction of Railway Projects. In particular, the following relief have been claimed by the applicants in each of the OAs :
"a) An order do issue directing the respondent to grant an appointment in favour of the applicant since portion of land acquisitioned for the construction of Railway Project namely Deshpran Nandigram Special Railway Project in the District of Purba Medinipur;
b) To grant costs and incidentals;
c}) Any other order or further order/orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper."
2. As common questions of facts and law govern these matters, these cases are being heard out analogously, upon due notice, to be disposed of by this common order at the admission stage, with the consent of both the parties.
3. Learned Counsel for both sides are present and heard.
WA 5 , 1077/22, 1078/22, 1079/22, 1080/22 , 1093/22, 1104/22, 1105/22, 1106/22, 1107/22, 1094/22, 1095/22, 1096/22
4. For the sake of brevity, facts in OA 350/01077/2022 are being delineated and discussed as hereunder :-
Ld. Counsel for applicant would submit that, a portion of land measuring 0.01 acre in plot no. 4207 was acquired, pursuant to a notification issued by the Railway Board dated 12.10.2017, for the purpose of construction of Desh Pran Nandigram Special Railway Project. Since no payment of compensation was made to the land owner, he has separately approached the authorities for compensation and that the Railway authorities had taken possession of his . land on 19.08.2020.
That, vide Railway Board vide RBE 99 of 2010 dated 16.07.2010, the Railways had declared that the Railways would call and consider applications for employment to PB-1 Pay Band of Rs. 5200-20,200/- with grade pay of Rs. 1800/- from land losers on account of acquisition of land for the projects on the Railways, subject to the procedure laid down therein.
And, that, as the claim of certain land losers had been rejected on the ground of non-viability of the project, the said land losers/applicants had approached this Tribunal in OA 350/1313/2019 and in other batch cases, which was subsequently disposed of by this Tribunal on 16.03.2020 with the following orders :-
"8. From the records we discern the following: (1) That, Inarguably and Indubitably the applicants are the land loosers, whose lands have been acquired by the Railways to construct a Railway Project (here Bowaichandi Arambag Special New B.G.Project Railway line). They were thus dispossessed of their land to facilitate construction of a Railway Project. oe (Il) That their right to employment under Railways' land looser scheme flows from RBE 99 of 2010, extracted supra, that was prevalent at the material time when land was Wh a 7 s . 6 ; 1077/22, 1078/22, 1079/22, 1080/22 , 1093/22, 1104/22, 1105/22, 1106/22, 1107/22, 1094/22, 1095/22, 1096/22 acquired. It was under a clear assurance of employment flowing from the Railway Policy © that they agreed to part with their source of livelihood.
(iii) That the respondents were already directed in the earlier O.A. to screen the applicants and consider them as per scheme, and If found suitable legally, to accord necessary benefits to them.
(iv) The respondents had never sought for any liberty to not follow the direction on the ground that the project for which land was acquired, did not turn out viable. The respondents are therefore in clear contempt.
(v) Moreover, 28 identically circumstanced land land loosers who were dispossessed due to proposed construction of Bowalchandi Arambag New BG Line and had supposedly lost their source of livelihood have been appointed/accommodated against other viable projects in compliance of the provision In RBE 99 of 2010. Therefore, the respondents are estopped by their conduct to deny employment to the present land losers on the ground that the project in question has been stalled.
(vi) Admittedly, the project got stalled, but even after the project got stalled. 28 land losers under the same project were accommodated. elsewhere and_ therefore respondents have arbitrarily meted out discrimination against the present applicants.
They have attempted to create a class within a class, which is not permissible in law.
(vii) The applicants right to employment is fortified by the RBE 99 of 2010 as well as the decision rendered In the previous OA to screen them and consider them as per scheme and to accord them necessary benefits, as also the fact that employment has been provided to identically placed land losers. Hence they are entitled to identical relief.
(viii). We further discern that the Railways are conspicuous by their silence on the reason why the present applicants, when others have been accommodated already, that too, after the project In question was stalled, cannot be accommodated against its other similar viable projects. Railways by depriving the present applicants their right flowing from RBE 99 of 2010, due to subsequent circular Introduced with prospective effect, are resorting to macrocompartmentalisation on the basis of a micro distinction or no distinction at all, which is grossly unfair.
(ix) The respondents have not rejected the claim of the applicant upon due screening. They have simply refused to screen them as the project, in question, has been stalled.
9. In WPCT 74 of 2016, the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta while considering an Identical matter of a land loser who was denied employment by Railways on the ground of age bar, has directed as under
"21. It is evident from the materials-on-record that even land losers, who were 47 years old, have been offered appointment. The respondent no. was 46 years old on the date he approached the tribunal for the first time. When his claim was rejected by the first order dated July 16, 2014, dob-Bar was hot cited as a ground therefor. What we find is that there were absence of certain documents/papers for which the claim of the respondent no.1 could not be put up before the screening committee for screening. If indeed that was the reason for regretting his prayer, the petitioners ought to have asked we
- * ° " 7 1077/22, 1078/22, 1079/22, 1080/22 , 1093/22, 1104/22, 1105/22, 1106/22, 1107/22, 1094/22, : 1095/22, 1096/22 the respondent no. 1 to supply the documents, which were not there In the file, Instead © of closing his right to claim appointment. We, therefore, propose to pass the following further directions to close the breach:
(i) within a period of seven days from date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order, the Chief Personnel Officer shall Intimate the respondent no.1, which of the documents are required from his end for ensuring placement of his claim before the screening.committee;
(ii) within a month of receipt of such Intimation, the respondent no.1 shall produce the necessary documents/papers before the Chief Personnel Officer and upon receipt of such documents/papers, the claim of, the respondent no.1 shall be placed before the screening committee for an appropriate decision: |
(iii) bearing in mind the fact that other land losers have been offered appointment even upon attaining 47 years of age, we hope and trust that the screening committee shall not cite age-bar as a ground for not considering the claim of the respondent no.1 and if a power of relaxation is indeed available to consider, Invocation of such power if the merits of the case so warrants; and
(iv) the entire exercise shall be completed as early as possible but not beyond June 30, 2019."
10. In view of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court supra, and our revelations as indicated above, we feel It appropriate in the Interest of justice, to direct the respondents to undertake an identical exercise as directed by the Hon'ble High Court In WPCT 74 of 2016 and issue appropriate order in regard to the present applicants within 4 months.
Accordingly, along with the present O.A., all the O.As. cited above, that related to identically circumstanced land loosers, in regard to. the same project as In this O.A. or otherwise, whose right to employment under land looser category flows from RBE 99/2010, are disposed of with identical direction. Pending M.As. In the some of the O.As. also stands disposed of. No costs." :
5. Learned counsel for the applicants would therefore, beseech that the applicants' pending representations be directed to be disposed of in the light of this Tribunal's order in OA 1313/2019 and in other batch cases.
Learned Counsel would also make a fair submission that the applicants be permitted to prefer, in continuance to their applications at Annexure-A/5 to each OAs, comprehensive representations citing the judicial decisions in support.
oe 8 1077/22, 1078/22, 1079/22, 1080/22 , 1093/22, 1104/22, 1105/22, 1106/22, 1107/22, 1094/22, 1095/22, 1096/22
6. Learned Counsel for the respondents would not object to consideration of such representations in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, this Tribunal would dispose of these OAs with a direction upon the applicants to prefer such comprehensive representations citing judicial decisions in support, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a ~ copy of this order.
On receipt of the same, the competent respondent authority is directed to consider all the representations, if received, as at Annexure-A/5 to these OAs, and the comprehensive representations as being permitted by this Tribunal vide this order, within a period of 6 weeks thereafter. The authority concerned should _ examine the: claims made in the light of judicial orders cited therein and communicate their decision vide reasoned and speaking orders to be conveyed to each of the applicants herein.
8. With these directions, these OAs stand as disposed of.
There will be no orders on costs.
(Dr. Nandita Chatterjee) (Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia) Administrative Member Judicial Member sl ..