Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, C.J., HARISH KUMAR
Union of India through Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Sumitra Devi, Wife of Sajindra Roy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. Vinod Chandran, C.J.
The clamour for a job, in lieu of acquisition of land, in addition to the monetary compensation, is the issue agitated in the above appeals. The petitioners assert that they have lost their lands in the acquisition carried out by the Railways, for the purpose of laying railway lines. Petitioners also rely on a policy of the Railways to claim jobs for each of them, being a member of the displaced families. The Railways had delayed the consideration and when some persons were granted the benefit, others were denied the same. The learned Single Judge directed not only consideration of the candidature of the petitioners, but also required offers of appointment to be made, effective from the date similarly situated persons were appointed. The petitioners were to be granted continuity of service from that date and salary was directed to be fixed notionally; the actual salary being paid from the date of joining.
2. The learned Senior Counsel, Dr. K.N. Singh appeared for the Railways and assailed the impugned judgment. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the lands of the petitioners were acquired under three different projects; the north side of Ganga B
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 similarl....
Railway land losers policy withdrawal held prospective; pre-existing applications recommended before withdrawal entitled to consideration under earlier scheme, not retrospectively denied.
Railway rehabilitation policy strictly limits employment to son/daughter/spouse of land losers, not grandchildren; delayed claims barred by laches.
No statutory provision for employment in lieu of acquired land; only compensation payable. Policy decisions providing jobs cannot override Land Acquisition Act, rendering them illegal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of land losers cannot be claimed as a matter of right and any government order providing employment to one member of a family ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
