Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Parimal Talukdar vs N.F.Railway on 25 June, 2024
1 O.A./350/1577/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
OA.350/01577/2023
MA/1131/2023 Date of Order: 25.06.2024.
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
1. Parimal Talukdar, Son of Late Nalini Talukdar,
Village-East Bamunia, Post Office- Panigram,
Police Station-Mathabhanga, District- Cooch-
Behar, Pin-735303.
2. Manik Barman, Son of Sukhnarayan Barman,
Village & Post Office-Panigram, Police Station-
Mathabhanga, District-Cooch-Behar, Pin Code-
735303.
3. Dhairya Narayan Barman, Son of Late Bacharam
Barman, Village & Post Office- Panigram, Police
Station-Mathabhanga, Cooch Behar, Pin Code No.
735303.
4. Biswajit Das, Son of Sisir Kumar Das, Village &
Post Office-Barokodali, Police Station- Boxirhat,
District-Cooch-Behar, Pin Code- 736159.
5. Mintu Basak, Son of Late Nagendra Basak,
Village & Post Office-Andoram, Full Bari West,
Police Station-Tufanganj, District-Cooch Behar, Pin
Code No. 735303.
............Applicants
-Versus-
1. Union of India, Service through the General
Manager, N.F. Railway, Assam. Police Station-
Maligaon, District- Kamrup. Guwahati- 781012.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Frontier
Railway, Alipurduar Junction, District- Cooch-
Behar, Pin-736123.
2 O.A./350/1577/2023
3. The Chief Engineer (Con), N.F. Railway,
Alipurduar, District- Cooch-Behar, Pin-736123.
4. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction)
Alipurduar Junction, N.F. Railway, District-
Alipurduar, Pin-736123.
5. The District Magistrate & Collector, Cooch-
Behar, Post Office and Police Station- Cooch
Behar, District-Cooch-Behar, Pin-736101.
6. Deputy Director Estt(N), Railway Board, Rail
Bhawan, New Delhi, Pin-110001.
..........Respondents
For the Applicant : Mr. K. S. Alam; Counsel
For the Respondents : Mr. R. Halder; Counsel
O R D E R (O R A L)
Per: Jayesh V. Bhairavia Member (J):
1. Ld Counsels for both the parties are present and are heard.
2. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following relief(s):-
"(a) The Respondent Authorities shall be ordered to accept the offer of appointment of the applicants as per circular issued by the Railway Authority by setting aside the impugned order dated 25.11.2020.
(b) Any other or further order or orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper.
(c) Costs of the proceedings."
3. Ld Counsel for the applicants submits that in the year 2003-2004, the Railways had started acquiring land for the Mainaguri to Jogighopa New B. G. Line Railway Project, N.F. Railway and accordingly the land of the applicant along with others was acquired by the respondents. Though 3 O.A./350/1577/2023 the process of land acquisition was started in the year 2003-2004 and same was completed before the Circular No. RBE/99/2010 came into force, the said Railway Project for which the land of the applicant was acquired was not completed before 2010 and the project was completed in the year 2013-14. It is stated that, the terms and conditions which were laid down in RBE/99/2010 for grant of compassionate appointment to the land loser or any the family members in lieu of the land acquired, becomes applicable in case of the applicants.
Accordingly, the applicants being land losers have submitted several representations before the respondent authorities praying for grant of compassionate appointment in terms of Circular RBE No. 99/2010. However, the said claim of the applicants was not acceded to by the respondents vide impugned speaking order dtd. 25.11.2020.
4. Ld. Counsel by relying upon the order dtd. 16.01.2024 passed by this Tribunal in OA/350/1565/2023, would argue that in the case of similarly placed applicants this Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider the pending representation of the applicant therein. Therefore, in the present case the respondents are required to be directed to consider the claim of the applicants herein.
5. Ld. Counsel for the applicant would also rely upon the judgment/ order dtd. 19.10.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta (Civil Appellate side, Appellate Side) in CPAN 1258 of 2019 in WPCT No. 74 of 2016 ( Lakshman Chandra Bhandary & Ors. Vs. Sunit Sharma & Ors.), and other connected matters, and submits that the Hon'ble High Court had 4 O.A./350/1577/2023 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners/ applicants therein without taking any other plea related to upper age limit or the educational qualification. Therefore, the applicants herein are also entitled for the benefit of compassionate appointment being the land losers on the same line.
6. On the other hand, Ld Counsel for the respondents submits that undisputedly the land acquisition process for the aforesaid Railway Project was initiated in the year 2003-04 and same was completed in the year 2008 i.e. before the publication of RBE/99/2010 by the Railway Board. Ld. Counsel for the respondents by referring to the speaking order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the respondent No. 4 in compliance of directions issued by this Tribunal in earlier round of litigation i.e. in O.A. No. 1756 of 2017 filed by the applicant herein, would argue that the respondents had considered the direction of this Tribunal to undertake an identical exercise as directed by the Hon'ble High Court in WPCT No. 74/2016 and to issue appropriate orders in regard to the present applicant. Accordingly, the case of the applicant has been examined by the respondents in light of such directions as well the conditions stipulated in RBE No. 99/2010. It has been found that as per the condition No. 08 of the said RBE dated 16.07.2010, the instructions contained therein will not be applicable in those cases where land acquisition process has been concluded by way of possession of land by the Railways. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for any benefit under the said Circular since the land acquisition process was concluded long back before the RBE came into force. Accordingly by recording the 5 O.A./350/1577/2023 said finding, the representation of the applicant was denied by the respondent No. 4.
Further, it is also submitted that the Railway authorities have not considered the claim of the land losers of Mainaguri to Jogighopa New B. G. Line Railway Project, N.F. Railway for grant of any benefit under the Scheme stipulated in RBE/99/2010.
7. Heard Ld Counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.
8. It emerges from record that undisputedly in the case of the applicant herein the process of land acquisition and the possession of the acquired land was completed in the year 2003-2004 by the concerned Railway authorities. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant time, the applicants have received due compensation for the land acquired by the Railway authorities. Further, it is noticed that the Railway Authorities had issued RBE No. 99/2010 dated 16.07.2010 wherein it has been categorically stipulated that the instructions contained in the said RBE normally will not be applicable in those cases where the land acquisition process has been concluded by way of possession of land by Railway.
As noted hereinabove, the applicant herein admitted that the process of land acquisition including the possession was concluded in the year 2003-2004. In absence of any contrary material to the said factual matrix, it is difficult to find any fault on the part of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the applicant vide impugned order dated 25.11.2020. In our considered view, the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, as well the 6 O.A./350/1577/2023 order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. 1565/2023 are in respect to the other Railway Projects.
Not only that, the conditions stipulated in Clause 8 of RBE 99/2010 and its applicability was not the issue in the said relied upon judgment and order. Therefore, the same will not come to the aid of the applicant in the present case. It can be seen that in light of directions issued by this Tribunal in the previous O.A. filed by the applicant herein, the respondents have considered the said representation of the applicant and by assigning cogent reason, the claim of the applicant has not been acceded to. We do not find any legal infirmities in the impugned order dated 25.11.2020. Hence, the OA lacks merit.
9. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. MA, if any, also stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
(Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das) (Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia) Member (A) Member (J) sk