Union of India Vs Abhishek Jain

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:9674-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 9043 of 2023

¶6

1 - Union Of India Through Ministry Of Railway, R/-0256-A, Rail Bhawan, Rail Bhawan Road, New Delhi 110011.

¶7

2 - South East Central Railway Through The General Manager Bilaspur Chhattsigarh (Cg)495001

¶8

3 - Deputy Chief Personnel Officer (Construction) South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495001.

¶9

4 - The Chief Project Manager Rail Vikas Nigam Limited, Project Office, Block No. 5, Maruti Business Park, G. E. Road, Raipur- 492013, C.G.

¶10

5 - Sr. Divisional Personnel Manager Divisional Office, Personal Department S E C Railway, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492008.

¶11

... Petitioner(s)

¶12

versus

¶13

1 - Abhishek Jain S/o Gendulal Jain Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Nayapara Bhanupratappur, P.S. Bhanupratappur District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh Pin – 494669.

¶14

2 - Ku. Bharti Thakur D/o Ganjan Singh Thakur Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Kanhargaon Patwari Halka No. 04 Bhanupratappur, P.S. Bhanupratappur District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh 494669.

¶15

3 - Satish Kumar S/o Shri Radey Shyam Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Mulla Bhanupratappur, P.S. Bhanupratappur District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh 494669.

¶16

4 - Suresh Kumar Kavde S/o Dayaram Kavde Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Chougel Bhanupratappur, P.S. Bhanupratappur District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh 494669.

¶17

5 - Devendra Kumar S/o Shri Ram Kumar Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Kanhargaon Bhanupratappur Kander, C.G., P.S. Bhanupratappur District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh 494669.

¶18

2

¶19

6 - Harishankar S/o Late Shri Parmanand Aged About 18 Years R/o Kanhargaon Bhanupratappur Kander, C.G., P.S. Bhanupratappur District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh 494669.

¶20

7 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Executive Officer, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh 490021.

¶21

... Respondent(s)

¶22

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General with Mr. Rishabh Deo Singh, Advocate

¶23

For Respondent(s)

¶24

: Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate

¶25

Hon’ble Smt. Rajani Dubey and Hon’ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ

¶26

Order on Board

¶27

25/02/2025

¶28

Per Sachin Singh Rajput, J.

¶29

The petitioners have filed this writ petition assailing the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the order dated 28.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) and 06.09.2023 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting Bilaspur, CG (for short ‘CAT’) in Original Application No. 203/641/2020 and Review Application No. 24/2023 respectively.

¶30

Facts of the case reflects that an original application (OA) under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short Act of ‘1985’) was filed by the respondents seeking a direction upon the petitioner to consider the case of the respondents for providing employment as per Memorandum of understanding (MoU) dated 11.12.2007 followed by notification dated 08.04.2011.

¶31

The respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 are the grand children and respondent No. 3 is the nephew of the persons whose land have been acquired by the Indian Railways for development of railway project i.e. railway line between Dalli Rajhara and Rowghat (95 Kms.) and from Rowghat to Jagdalpur (140 Kms). Barring the respondent No. 6 rest of the respondent made an application for consideration of his case for grant of appointment with the petitioner. Their applications were rejected by the petitioners on the ground that the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 are the grand children, respondent No. 3 is the nephew of land

¶32

3

¶33

looser and not entitled for appointment in railways. The orders passed by the railways / petitioners were subject to challenge before the CAT. By the order dated 28.07.2023 (Annexure P-1), the original application filed by the respondents was allowed and the order rejecting their claim for appointment was quashed. The petitioners were directed to reconsider the claim of the respondents afresh in light of ratio laid down the learned Tribunal has referred to its earlier judgment in O.A No. 203/00929/2014 decided on 28.11.2017 which has been affirmed by this Court in WPS No. 1349 of 2018 in the matter of South East Central Railway and others Vs. Yashvant and others decided on 03.04.2018 . Against that order, a review petition was filed by the petitioner which also stood dismissed by order dated 06.09.2023 (Annexure P-11). This led to filing of the writ petition.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the CAT is bad in law and contrary to the fact circumstances of the case. The respondents being grand children, daughter-in-law and nephew of the land looser are not entitled to appointment in the railways. The learned Tribunal directed the petitioner to reconsider the case of the respondents afresh. Therefore, the writ petition may be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions and submits that the learned CAT has only directed the petitioners to reconsider the cases of the respective respondents in light of Yashvant (supra) and no direction was issued to provide appointment. He further submits that the issue of consideration of the cases of grand children is no longer integra in light of judgment of Yashvant (supra). He submits that the similar issue came up before this Court in various writ petitions, one of them being in WPS Nos. 1349 of 2018, 1712 of 2020 and 6133 of 2022 which were dismissed by this Court. Against the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 6133 of 2022, SLP preferred by the petitioner bearing SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 29416 of 2023 also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders. He submits that sofar as the case of respondent No. 3 is concerned, the only direction was to reconsider his case and sofar as respondent No. 6 is concerned, in his place her mother being a daughter-in-law of land looser, earlier made an application and subsequently respondent No. 6 made an application which yet has not been decided and therefore, there is no illegality or

¶35

4

¶36

irregularity in the impugned orders.

¶37

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶38

There is no dispute to the fact that the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 are grand children of the land looser. Respondent No. 3 is the nephew of the land looser. The issue is with regard to consideration of the case of the grand children came up before this Court. In case of Yashvant (supra) in paragraph Nos. 3 & 4 it has been observed as under:-

¶39

“3. It is not in dispute that no member of the family of the person from whom the land was acquired was appointed as among the land losers. The Railways also do not dispute the fact that the 1st Respondent is the grandson of the primary owner of the land, which was acquired. Revised instructions dated 16.07.2010 issued by the Railway Board says that the Applicant shall be a person whose land or a portion thereof has been acquired for the project. It is the provision therein that in case of sole owner of land, the applicant shall be the sole owner or son/daughter/husband/wife of the land. The said clause further elaborates to say that if the land is owned by more than one person, it would be for the competent authority to decide as to who shall be considered as applicant. This clause itself shows that there is a fair amount of discretion available to the Railway Authorities in the matter. The ultimate requirement is that there should not be any appointment, of more than one person referable to one owner of an item of land which is acquired by the Railways. A purposive approach in

¶40

understanding the Railway Board's Notification would definitely lead to the conclusion that in cases where situation of the nature in hand occur, it will be within the authority of the Railways to make the appropriate choice; even down in the probable line of succession; particularly when all the three persons are still alive and are shown to have been carrying out agricultural operations over land that they lost as a result of requisition by the Railways.

¶41

4. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we do find that there is any illegality or injustice done to the Railways, in the manner in which the Tribunal has dealt with the application filed by the 1st Respondent before it. The Tribunal acted well within its jurisdiction in terms of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act,1985. The conclusions on facts have been rendered on the basis of materials on record. Inferences drawn by the Tribunal are fair and reasonable. They cannot be treated as

¶42

5

¶43

unjust and unavailable. Balancing the right of the Railways and their obligation to provide employment to land losers on the one hand and the eligibility of atleast one person to get employment on account of land acquisition, we do not see any that injustice has been cause to the Railways by the impugned verdict. We, therefore, do not find any ground visit the decision of the Tribunal by exercising authority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition thus fails.”

¶44

Various petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the similar issue which have been decided by this Court in the cases as mentioned above. Even otherwise, the learned CAT has only directed the petitioner to reconsider the cases of the respondents in light of law laid down by this Court in Yashvant (supra). In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners have not been able to make out a good ground for interference by this Court, particularly, when the issue has been set at rest by this Court and also in light of the case of Yashvant (supra).

¶45

In the result, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order (Annexures P-1 & 11). This writ petition sans merits is hereby dismissed.

¶46

It is excepted that the petitioners shall comply with the order of CAT in its letter and spirit expeditiously.

¶47

Sd/Sd/(Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge

¶48

Pawan

¶49

Digitally signed by PAWAN PAWAN KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.03.03 11:22:35 +0530

Union of India v. Abhishek Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Abhishek Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Juggilal Agrawal Vs Ramawtar Goenka and Anr.

The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Shri Bimal Kumar Chhachariya and Sons

Chandrakant Mahilang Vs Smt. Nageshwari Gehne

Smt. Yamini Rajput Vs Krishna Kumar Rajput

Union of India Vs Bharat Lal Patel

Union of India Vs Iradhar Prasad Sahu