Railway rehabilitation policy strictly limits employment to son/daughter/spouse of land losers, not grandchildren; delayed claims barred by laches.

O R D E R

Per : Hon’ble Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Administrative Member

The applicants have approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:

“8.1 For direction upon the respondents to issue necessary appointment order in favour of the applicant No. 2 against any Group D post under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme for land losers on account of acquisition of their land for constructions of Rail cum Road Bridge over river Ganga similar to similarly situated persons after taking the necessary steps as specifically enumerated in RBE No. 99/2010 dated 16.07.2010.

8.2 For any other appropriate relief or reliefs which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.”

2. For the sake of clarity, facts in the case as stated by the applicants in the OA, are discussed and delineated herein under:-

In the year 2002, the State Government initiated land acquisition proceedings for construction of a Rail-cum-Road Bridge over River Ganga from Digha to Sonepur, to be undertaken by East Central Railway under the Ministry of Railways. Consequently, Land Acquisition Case Nos. 9/02-03 and 10/02-03 were registered.

In the said acquisition proceedings, the entire land of the applicant measuring 242 decimals was acquired. However, a compensation of Rs. 3,58,115/- was paid to applicant No. 1, while the remaining compensation has not been paid till date despite repeated requests. No alternative land or rehabilitation benefits were provided.

During the acquisition process, the applicants were informed that a Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, including employment to one family member of land losers, was under consideration.

Subsequently, the Government of India, Ministry of Railways issued Notification dated 16.07.2010 (R.B.E. No. 99/2010), providing for appointment of one eligible family member of land losers in Group ‘D’ posts.

It is submitted that the son of applicant No. 1 who happened to be father of applicant No. 2, namely Arvind Kumar @ Mani Shankar Kumar, died on 18.02.2004. Therefore, applicant No. 2, being the legal heir, is entitled to be considered for appointment under the said scheme.

Upon gaining knowledge of the notification, applicant No. 1 submitted an application dated 20.01.2015 before the Divisional Railway Manager, Sonepur Division, seeking appointment of applicant No. 2 under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. Despite eligibility and repeated representations, no decision has been communicated by the respondents.

It is further submitted that similarly situated persons, whose lands were acquired under the same project, have been granted employment benefits. Being aggrieved, applicant No. 1 submitted a further representation dated 15.09.2017 before the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, but no action has been taken till date.

The applicants submit that the cause of action is continuing and recurring due to persistent inaction of the respondents.

3.1 Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the case of the applicants squarely fall within the ambit of Railway Board Notification dated 16.07.2010, which provides employment to one eligible family member of land losers. The land of the applicants having been acquired for a Railway project, applicant No. 2 is legally entitled to be considered for appointment.

3.2 Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that it is a settled principle of law that beneficial and welfare schemes must be interpreted liberally. The purpose of the notification is rehabilitation of land losers, and technical objections cannot defeat substantive justice.

3.3 Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that th