The withdrawal of a policy does not affect the entitlement of individuals for similar treatment under Article 14, especially when the policy was consistently applied and the individuals were similarly placed. The court emphasized that the denial of benefits based on the withdrawal of the policy was an act of arbitrariness and high-handedness on the part of the authorities.

JUDGMENT :

1. All these three writ petitions were heard together as common questions are required to be examined in all the three cases.

2. The brief facts, which require to be noticed for the purpose of adjudication are being taken from all the case files.

3. The petitioners in C.W.J.C. No.5751 of 2021 are resident of district Vaishali, while the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No.21778 of 2019 and C.W.J.C. No.21559 of 2019 are resident of northern side of Rail-cum-Road Bridge over river Ganga connecting Digha-Patna with Saran district. The lands of the petitioners and their parents were acquired by the State Government for the purpose of the construction of the rail-cum-bridge over river Ganga and commonly known as Ganga bridge. The area of the land acquired is mentioned in the said writ petition and while compensation was granted, the Railways Board vide its letter dated 27.01.2006 communicated its decision providing appointment on Group-C and D posts to at least one member of each family, whose lands were acquired for establishment of the said railway project. Vide circular dated 19.04.2006, the Railway Board directed the General Manager of All India Railway referring to the provisions contained in its earlier letter regarding appointment in the railway to the members of displaced families, as a result of acquisition of land for establishment of projects. It was stated that after due deliberations in the full Board meeting, it was decided that no compensation by way of offering employment to displaced persons should be given wherein only strip of land has been acquired but the same can be considered for appointment in Group-D post, wherein large area, house or substantial livelihood has been taken away/steps in the process. It also reiterated that cases where recruitment was already in progress or where any commitment has been given to provide employment such recruitment process should be finalized and employment should be provided on Group-D post. On 28.07.2008, the General Manager, Hajipur was directed that the East Central Railway to decide cases of employment of land losers locally as per para-2 of the Board’s letter dated 19.04.2006. Vide letter dated 26.04.2011, it was further clarified as under:-

“Criteria in terms of measurement of land has never been laid down in absolute terms for providing employment to those whose land has been acquired for railway projects and the same was required to be dealt with in terms of instructions contained in the letter dated 19.04.2006 and 28.07.2008.”

4. On 27.01.2015, the Railways Board reiterated its view relating to appointment to land loser. However vide order dated 11.11.2019 the Railways Board decided to withdraw its earlier policy of offering appointment in railways to the affected land loser and instead thereto a lump sum payment of Rs. 5 lac was to be granted to families who were primarily dependent on acquired land for livelihood. The circular was issued in light of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The policy was made effective from the date of issue of letter i.e. 11.11.2019.

5. The present litigation has arisen on account of the circular dated 11.11.2019 and the denial of the Eastern Railway in granting employment to one of the members of the family of the land looser whose land was acquired in 2006 for the Ganga Bridge Project. The petitioners are such persons, who have been displaced on account of their complete land having been acquired.

6. With regard to the issue several writ petitions were filed before this court earlier. Two writ petitions bearing no. 16932/2011 and 15918/2011 on 26.04.2012, wherein this court has observed that the persons whose land has been acquired completely which may be even less than 20 decimal cannot be debarred for consideration of appointment. It was observed that 61 persons out of 125 persons had already been provided job by the railways authorities. Upon representation made by