JUDGMENT :

Harish Tandon, J.

The aforesaid applications are filed by the petitioner seeking for an initiation of the contempt proceedings for alleged violation of an order dated 08.02.2019 passed in WPCT 74 of 2016 and for filing a criminal contempt under Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction and for quashing and/or setting aside the document dated 24.05.2021 by which they claim, all the applicants therein, for grant of railway service in the land loser category was rejected.

2. A prelude to the aforesaid litigations can be traced when the land was acquired for railway project of the applicants and in terms of the scheme in vogue at the relevant point of time, the applicants sought for their job in the railways. Their applications were taken out before the competent authority but the same was not being moved further which constrained the applicant to move before the Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of the same directing the authorities to consider and decide the representations filed by the applicants in accordance with law taking into consideration the Railway Board Circular dated 16.07.2010. In compliance of the said direction, the order was passed by the Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway on July 15, 2014 declining to offer the appointment to the Applicant no. 1 as he was found not to have submitted the relevant document/paper so that the matter can be put up before the Screening Committee. The Applicant no. 1 thereafter moved a contempt application before the Tribunal and the Tribunal observed that its order has not been complied with in true letter and spirit and, therefore, directed the alleged contemnors therein to appear in personem to show-cause why an action should not be taken against him. In addition to the same, the Tribunal further directed the alleged contemnor therein to file a compliance report. Pursuant to the same, a letter was caused on December 12, 2014 by Chief Personnel Officer that in terms of the provision indicated in Paragraph 5 of the Railway Boards Letter dated 16.07.2010 the General Manager has not considered to offer the appointment in railways as the applicants have crossed the prescribed upper age limit fixed for the direct recruitment quota from open market. The letter was produced before the Tribunal who taking note the same observed that it is clear from the stand of the respondent authorities that they have simply avoided the prayer for giving the appointment upon relaxation of the age standard and further directed the Assistant Personnel Officer to appear before the Tribunal. Ultimately, the Tribunal did not accept the ground taken by the respondent authorities that because of the upper age limit the case under the land loser category cannot be accepted and directed the authorities to consider redress the said default. Obviously, the Tribunal was of the view that in some cases the Railways have relaxed the upper age limit. Ultimately, the matter came up before this Court in WPCT 74 of 2016 and the Division Bench observed that it is evident from the materials on record that even the land losers who were 47 years old were offered appointment and the applicant no. 1 at the relevant point of time was below such age and, therefore, the rejection on such ground does not appear to be proper. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:

“21. 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 document/papers, th