ORDER :

SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. This writ petition filed by the South East Central Railway is directed against the impugned order dated 28/06/2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, Circuit Bench, Bilaspur by which original application filed by respondent No. 2 has been allowed and the petitioners herein have been directed to consider the case of respondent No. 2 for employment against the land loser's scheme.

2. The aforesaid challenge has arisen on the following factual backdrop :-

2.1. The subject land was originally owned by Late Shri Janakram and Shri Malik Ram bearing Khasra No. 2269/2 total area 0.105 hectares which was acquired for construction of Champa bypass railway line, the project of Indian Railways and the land acquisition certificate was granted by the Sub-divisional Officer (Revenue) and Land Acquisition Officer, Champa.

2.2. In lieu of the land acquired, Shri Om Prakash Rathore (respondent No. 1 herein), son of original land owner Shri Janak Ram was nominated by the State Government for the job on the basis of which employment assistance case for providing job to him was further processed and his necessary medical test was done in which he was found unfit for the job, hence, he was unable to secure employment assistance.

2.3. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 herein moved an application claiming appointment, however, it was rejected by petitioner No. 2 herein by order dated 11/08/2021 which was then challenged by respondents No. 1 and 2 herein before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

2.4. By the impugned order, learned Central Administrative Tribunal has relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of South East Central Railway v. Yashwant, WPS No. 1349/2018 decided on 03/04/2018 wherein it has been held that grandson would be entitled for employment under notification dated 02/09/2011 and has held that respondent No. 2 herein, being the granddaughter of the land loser, would be entitled for employment as per the relevant policy and allowed the application of the respondent No. 2 (applicant).

3. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the Central Administrative Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in granting the application filed by respondent No. 2 as according to the notification dated 02/9/2011 (Annexure P/2), land loser himself or his son/daughter/husband/wife would be entitled for employment but respondent No. 2, being the granddaughter of original owner of the land, would not be entitled for appointment. Accordingly, impugned order (Annexure P/1) is liable to be set aside.

4. Mr. Y.C. Sharma, learned senior counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, would submit that original owner of the land was late Janak Ram, who was the father of respondent No. 1 and grandfather of respondent No. 2 and since respondent No. 1 was found unfit in medical test, he was not granted employment and none in the respondent No. 1's family has been granted employment, therefore, South East Central Railways is obliged to grant employment to respondent No. 2, who is land loser's granddaughter and as such, the Central Administrative Tribunal is absolutely justified in granting employment to respondent No. 2 herein.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

6. Admittedly, South East Central Railways has promulgated notification dated 02/09/2011 in which following four class of persons have been held entitled for appointment on account of acquisition of their land :-

“2. As per the policy of Ministry of Railways/Railway Board, Railway may call and consider applications for employment to PB-1 Rs. 5200-20200/- with Grade Pay of Rs.1800/- from land losers on account of acquisition of land for the projects on the Railways who fulfills the criteria given below.

I. The applicant shall be a person (sole owner of land or son/daughter/husband/wife of the s