Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2802

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M.S. Latif, Judicial Member, Prasant Kumar, Administrative Member
Yaseen Ahmad Ganaie – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu and Kashmir – Respondent
OA No.886/2023

Advocates:
For the Applicants: Mr. Jahangir Ganai, Sr. Counsel, Ms. Mehnaz Rather, Jr. Counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. Muddasir Malik, CGC

Railway land losers policy withdrawal held prospective; pre-existing applications recommended before withdrawal entitled to consideration under earlier scheme, not retrospectively denied.

Headnote:(A) Railway recruitment policy - Land losers quota - Withdrawal of scheme vide RBE No.193/2019 dated 11.11.2019 - Policy specified in para 5 to be effective from date of issue i.e. 11.11.2019 onwards, having prospective effect only - Applications and recommendations by state authorities forwarded to railway construction organization well before issuance of withdrawal policy - Applicants entitled to consideration under earlier policy in force at time of land acquisition and recommendation. (Paras 12, 14)

(B) Service law - Policy implementation - Where policy laid down by government, terms to be enforced - Denial based on subsequent withdrawal circular not applicable retrospectively to pending cases processed prior to withdrawal - Discrimination from similarly situated candidates violates equality. (Paras 3(i), 3(ii))

(C) Limitation - OA not barred - Continuous cause of action due to pending claims and departmental communications post-withdrawal seeking clarification on pre-existing cases. (Para 4(iv))

Facts of the case:
Land of applicants acquired in phases during 2001-2011 for railway line construction, losing more than 75% holdings. State authorities recommended their applications for Group 'D' posts under land losers quota via letters dated 2013-2019. Screening initiated pre-2019 per 2007 policy, but stalled post RBE 11.11.2019 withdrawing scheme and offering lump sum instead. Respondents sought clarification on pre-2019 cases, admitting pendency.

Findings of Court:
Impugned letter dated 11.11.2019 quashed to extent of retrospective application. Respondents directed to consider and decide applicants' claims per policy in force at land acquisition and recommendation time, within three months.

Issues: Whether withdrawal policy applies retrospectively to land losers whose cases recommended pre-11.11.2019; entitlement to appointment under earlier scheme despite withdrawal; applicability of limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Withdrawal circular prospective only; pre-existing validly recommended claims under prior policy must be processed thereunder, not frustrated by subsequent supersession, ensuring non-discrimination and policy enforcement.

Result: OA allowed.

Table of Content
1. land acquisition for usbrl project and applicants' qualifications processed under 2007 policy. (Para 2)
2. applicants claim policy enforcement, non-discrimination, and prior rights under 2007 circular. (Para 3)
3. respondents defend 2019 policy withdrawal, limitation, delays, and post-withdrawal processing. (Para 4)
4. policies require selection process; backdoor entries conflict with equality and safety standards. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
5. admitted facts confirm pre-2019 recommendations under prevailing land loser appointment policy. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
6. 2019 policy prospective; pre-policy recommendations entitled to consideration under old rules. (Para 13 , 14)
7. oa allowed; direct consideration within three months per pre-2019 policy. (Para 15)

ORDER

Per Hon’ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.)

Through the medium of the instant OA, applicants seek following reliefs:-

“(i) The impugned letter dated 11.11.2019 be quashed to the extent of its application made retrospectively to the petitioner’s right to engagement as group D and in- terms of letter dated: 03.01.2007 r/s RB 99 of 2010 under the category of land loser as same shall be in the interest of justice and equity.

(ii) The respondents be directed to finalize the long pending claim of petitioner’s for appointment in-terms of letter dated: 3.1.2007 on the analogy of similarly situated candidates reference of which is made in the letter dated: 18^th January 2022, as same shall be in the interests of justice and equity.

(iii) Any other relief, order or direction as deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal may also be passed to serve the interests of justice.”

2. The facts of the case as narrated by the applicants in the instant OA are as under:-

(i) The respondent department acquired land in Kashmir Division in three phases in the year 2001, 2008 & 2011 for construction of railway line from Udampur to Baramulla and in the said process, the applicants lose more than 75% of land which is an admitted fact.

(ii) The applicant No.1 is MA, B.Ed. On 19.11.2012, the Tehsildar Awantipora Pulwama forwarded applicant No.1’s application form to the Assistant Commissioner (C) with the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir for appointment in the respondent department for Group ‘D’ post in terms of Scheme which was prevalent at that point of time. On 17.09.2013, the Assistant Commissioner (C) forwarded the case of the applicant No.1 to the Chief Administrative Officer USBRL project, Northern Railway, Jammu Tawi for appropriate action in the matter. Accordingly, the applicant No.1 was called for screening test, pursuance of letter dated 21.07.2015 and the same was finally conducted on 25.08.2015 and on 14.09.2019 he was called for scrutiny of papers.

(iii) Applicant No.2 is 10+2, applicant No.3 is BCA MCA, B.Ed,, applicant No.4 & 5 are 10+2 and applicant No.6 is 10^th passed. These applicants’ applications for appointment on Group ‘D’ posts were forwarded to the respondents department along with all necessary documents through the same channel to the Chief Administrative Officer USBRL Project, Northern Railway, Jammu Tawi vide letter dated 11.11.2017, 17.07.2019, 05.02.2019, 17.07.2019 & on 10.09.2013 respectively. Applicant No.6 was called for screening test pursuant to letter dated 21.07.2015.

(iv) Admittedly the applicants land was acquired by the Railway department for USBRL (Udhampur, Srinagar, Baramulla Railway line) project w.e.f. 1998 onwards till 2011 on different dates and the case of the applicants was processed which is pending for issuance of letter of appointment in pursuance to Railway Board’s letter No.220-E/I/Rectt/Gr “C” & “D”/Const/06 dated 03.01.2007 r/w Circulars dated 16.07.2010 and 13.08.2010.

(v) After issuance of letter dated 11.11.2019 (Annexure-I) the Divisional Railway Manager (P) Northern Railway vide communication letter dated 18.01.2022 to the General Manager (P) HQ Office, Northern Railway Board, New Delhi sought clarification w.r.t. cases received before the 11.11.2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2802

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALM.S. Latif, Judicial Member, Prasant Kumar, Administrative MemberYaseen Ahmad Ganaie – AppellantVersusState of Jammu and Kashmir – RespondentOA No.886/2023

Railway land losers policy withdrawal held prospective; pre-existing applications recommended before withdrawal entitled to consideration under earlier scheme, not retrospectively denied.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M.S. Latif, Judicial Member, Prasant Kumar, Administrative Member
Yaseen Ahmad Ganaie – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu and Kashmir – Respondent
OA No.886/2023