1. Land acquisition for railway project — Demolition of residential house — Claim for employment under Railway Board policy circulars — Rejection of claim based on land area. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 326
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
ANIL KUMAR – Petitioner
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1958 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) No. 32810 of 2018)
Decided On : 22-02-2019
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Uday Gupta, Adv., Ms. Shivani Lal, Adv., Mr. Hiren Dasan, Adv., Mr. M.K. Tripathi, Adv., Mr. Sulalit Sisodia, Adv., Mrs. Sarla Chandra, AOR.
For the Respondents: Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Mr. Dhruv Pall, Adv., Ms. Aprajita Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. Samarth Khanna, Adv., Mr. Bharat Singh, Adv., Mr. Raj Bahadur, Adv., Mr. M.P. Gupta, Adv., Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Uday Gupta, Adv., Ms. Shivani Lal, Adv., Mr. Hiren Dasan, Adv., Mr. M.K. Tripathi, Adv., Mr. Sulalit Sisodia, Adv., Mrs. Sarla Chandra, AOR.
For the Respondents: Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Mr. Dhruv Pall, Adv., Ms. Aprajita Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. Samarth Khanna, Adv., Mr. Bharat Singh, Adv., Mr. Raj Bahadur, Adv., Mr. M.P. Gupta, Adv., Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR.
The Court held that where a binding government policy exists for providing employment to displaced persons, it must be enforced. If the policy allows employment when a 'house' is demolished, the claim cannot be rejected solely on the basis that only a small strip of land was acquired.
Headnote:Service law – Railways – General policy circular dated 19 April 2006 – Appointment to persons against a Group ‘D’ post where a large area, house or substantial livelihood has been taken away/snapped in the process – Phrases, held, disjunctive – Appellant’s entire house was demolished – Rejection of appellant’s claim held contrary to terms of the binding policy circular. (Para 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
The father of the appellant had constructed a two storied house together with a part of a third floor. The land over which the residential house was constructed was acquired in 2006 for the Ara-Sasaram Railway Project.
A communication was issued on 8 August 2008 by the Executive Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Ara to the Deputy Chief Engineer recommending the case of the appellant for appointment in service in terms of a policy circular of the Railway Board dated 19 April 2006.
Between 2008 and 2011, before he died, the appellant’s father had an exchange of correspondence with the authorities for requesting them that the benefit of the policy circular of 19 April 2006 be granted since his entire house had been demolished. After his father died on 15 May 2011, the appellant instituted a writ petition before the High Court, seeking that relief.
The appellant then submitted a representation in terms of High Court order in the said writ petition which was rejected.
The appellant then filed a Second Writ Petition, challenging an order of rejection whichg has been dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
Appellant is entitled to appointment.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claims entitlement due to full house demolition — Respondents contend acquisition of only a strip of land disentitles the claimant under policy guidelines. (Para 16 , 17 )
3. Policy circular allows employment if a house is demolished; terms regarding area, house, or livelihood are disjunctive; rejection based on land size is incorrect. (Para 18 , 19 )
4. Formulated government policies are enforceable; rejection of claims based on extraneous reasons or irrelevant considerations contrary to binding policy is unsustainable. (Para 20 )
5. Appeal allowed — Direction to implement appointment to Group 'D' post within two months with necessary age relaxation. (Para 21 , 22 )
6. Does the acquisition of only a small strip of land preclude employment if a residential house is demolished?
No. The policy circular allows employment consideration if a large area, house, or substantial livelihood is taken away. Because these terms are disjunctive, the demolition of a house entitles the claimant to consideration regardless of whether only a strip of land was acquired. (Para 18 )
7. Can a writ of mandamus be issued to enforce a government policy regarding employment?
Yes. While appointment is generally a matter of policy discretion and no mandamus lies in the absence of a policy, once a binding policy has been formulated by the government, the terms of that policy can be enforced. (Para 20 )
8. What is the legal effect of rejecting a claim based on reasons extraneous to a binding government policy?
Rejection of a claim based on extraneous reasons or irrelevant considerations that contradict a binding policy circular is considered a failure of implementation and social justice, rendering such a rejection invalid. (Para 20 )
JUDGMENT :
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 3 January 2018 in a Letters Patent Appeal, [Letters Patent Appeal No. 1929/2016 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 25313/2013].
3. The father of the appellant, Lalan Pandey, had constructed a two storied house together with a part of a third floor on Plot No. 1844, appurtenant to Khata No. 228, ad-measuring 0.06 acres, situated at Mauza-Pakri, Ara in the District of Sasaram in Bihar. The land over which the residential house was constructed was acquired in 2006 for the Ara-Sasaram Railway Project.
4. On 7 June 2008, the Collector Bhojpur, Ara submitted a list of persons displaced in consequence of the project undertaken by the Railways. The name of the appellant’s father occurred at serial no. 8 in the list of persons whose residential houses had been fully demolished. A communication was issued on 8 August 2008 by the Executive Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Ara to the Deputy Chief Engineer recommending the case of the appellant for appointment in service in terms of a policy circular of the Railway Board dated 19 April 2006.
5. Since the letter dated 7 August 2008 contains a statement of relevant facts, the letter is extracted below:-
“The house of Sh. Lalan Pandey s/o Late Ram Naresh Pandey of village Jagdeo Nagar, Pakri, Ara is coming centrally in the alignment of Ara-Sasaram New Railway line with following land details:
| Khata No. 228 | Khesara No. 1844/32 |
| P.S. No. 236 | Pakri (ARA) |
The complete demolition of the house is required for construction of new line at this location.
Sh. Lalan Pandey s/o Late Ram Naresh Pandey has demolished about 90% part of the house constructed in a two kattha land with covered area approximate 1110 sq. feet. He had two-storied building with part construction in third story.
Sh. Lalan Pandey, s/o Late Ram Naresh Pandey is a completely displaced person due to construction of new line and his livelihood has suffered due to displacement. A report on assessment by DLAO/Ara office regarding size and facilities available at his demolished house is enclosed for reference.
Vide this office letter under reference above the application was forwarded for consideration for job in Railway as per the extant provisions.
His case may be considered for job in Railway in terms of Railway Board’s letter No. E(NG) II/2002/RC-5/4 dated 19.04.2006 (copy enclosed)”
6. Between 2008 and 2011, before he died, the appellant’s father had an exchange of correspondence with the authorities for requesting them that the benefit of the policy circular of 19 April 2006 be granted since his entire house had been demolished. After his father died on 15 May 2011, the appellant instituted a writ petition before the High Court, [Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4493/2012] seeking that relief.
7. After a counter affidavit was filed in the proceedings, the High Court by its order dated 11 December 2012 directed that the claim of the appellant should be considered by the General Manager, East Central Railways, Vaishali at Hazipur for the grant of Group ‘D’ employment within a period of three months.
8. The appellant then submitted a representation which was rejected by an order dated 20 February 2013. The reasons for the rejection were as follows:-
“(i) As per Annexure-1 (Railway Board Circular No. E(NG)II/2002/RC-5/4 dated 19.04.2006) “...no cognizance by way of offering employment to displaced persons should be given wherein only a strip of land for construction of a line has been acquired...”
(ii) In the impugned case a small piece of land measuring 0.06 acre only was acquired in the year 2006 vide Annexure-C (Case NO.01/2005-06). As such this does not conform to the requirement of above mentioned Board’s Circular to entitle the applicant for job in railway.
(iii) The letter of Executive Engineer/ Construction No. XEN/C Ara/AS-6 dated 08.08
