Union of India Vs Sharad Yadav

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:16502-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 730 of 2026

¶6

1. Union Of India Through General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, C.G. – 482004.

¶7

2. The Deputy Chief Personal Officer (Construction) South East Central Railway, District- Bilaspur, C.G. 495001.

¶8

3. The Deputy Chief Personal Officer (Construction) South East Central Railway, District- Nagpur, M.H. 440001.

¶9

4. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) South East Central Railway, Nainpur, District- Mandla, M.P. 306104.

¶10

--- Petitioners

¶11

versus

¶12

1. Durgesh Sahu S/o Shri Rajkumar Sahu Aged About 32 Years OccupationUnemployed, R/o Village Miragpur, Tehsil Khairlanji And District Balaghat, M.P.- 481001.

¶13

2. Collector Seoni, District Seoni, M.P. 480661.

¶14

3. Sub-Divisional Officer (R) / Land Acquisition Officer Seoni, District - Seoni, M.P. 480661

¶15

--- Respondents

¶16

AND

¶17

WPS No. 721 of 2026

¶18

1. Union Of India.

¶19

2. The Deputy Chief Personal Officer (Construction) South East Central Railway, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001.

¶20

3. The Deputy Chief Personal Officer (Construction) South East Central Railway, District- Nagpur (M.H.) 440001.

¶21

DEEPTI JHA

¶22

JHA 4. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) South East Central Railway, Nainpur, Digitally signed by District- Mandla (M.P.) 306104 DEEPTI JHA

---Petitioners

2

Versus

1. Ramratan Gwalwanshi S/o Late Danjiram Gwalwanshi Aged About 48 Years Occupation Unemployed, R/o Village Pipardahi, Post Pipardahi, P.S. Lakhanwada, Tehsil Seoni And District Seoni (M.P.) 480661.

¶27

2. Collector Seoni, District Seoni (M.P.) 480661.

¶28

3. Sub-Divisional Officer (R)/ Land Acquisition Officer Seoni, District Seoni (M.P.) 480661.

¶29

--- Respondents

¶30

AND

¶31

WPS No. 2684 of 2026

¶32

1. Union Of India Through The General Manager, South East Central Railway Bilaspur Railway Chhattisgarh. 495004.

¶33

2. Divisional Railway Manager South East Central Railway District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492008.

¶34

3. Divisional Personnel Officer South East Central Railway District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492008.

¶35

4. The Chief Administrative Officer ( Con) South East Central Railway Bilaspur Railway Chhattisgarh. 495004.

¶36

5. The Sub Divisional Officer ( Revenue) Land Acquisition Officer, Sub Division Dondilohara, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. 491771.

¶37

---Petitioners

¶38

Versus

¶39

Trilok Chand Kothari S/o Shri Kawal Singh Kothari Aged About 29 Years Resident Of Village Gudum, Post - Dondi, P.S. And Tahsil - Dondilohara, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. 491228.

¶40

--- Respondent

¶41

AND

¶42

WPS No. 751 of 2026

¶43

1. Union Of India Through General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, C.G. – 482004.

¶44

2. The Deputy Chief Personal Officer (Construction) South East Central Railway, District- Bilaspur, C.G. 495001.

¶45

3. The Deputy Chief Personal Officer (Construction) South East Central Railway, District- Nagpur, M.H. 440001.

¶46

4. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) South East Central Railway, Nainpur, District- Mandla, M.P. 306104.

---Petitioners

3

Versus

1. Ajay Yadav S/o Late Ghudanlal Yadav Aged About 36 Years Occupation Unemployed, R/o Ambedkar Ward, Near Tube Well, Mohalla Lalmatiya, District Seoni, M.P.- 480661.

¶51

2. Collector Seoni, District Seoni, M.P. 480661.

¶52

3. Sub-Divisional Officer (R) / Land Acquisition Officer Seoni, District - Seoni, M.P. 480661.

¶53

--- Respondents

¶54

AND

¶55

WPS No. 740 of 2026

¶56

1. Union Of India Through General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, C.G. – 482004.

¶57

2. The Deputy Chief Personal Officer (Construction) South East Central Railway, District- Bilaspur, C.G. 495001.

¶58

3. The Deputy Chief Personal Officer (Construction) South East Central Railway, District- Nagpur, M.H. 440001.

¶59

4. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) South East Central Railway, Nainpur, District- Mandla, M.P. 306104.

¶60

---Petitioners

¶61

Versus

¶62

1. Sharad Yadav S/o Late Shri Krishna Kumar Yadav Aged About 34 Years Occupation- Unemployed, R/o Kali Chowk, Tegore Ward, Tehsil And District Seoni, M.P.- 480661.

¶63

2. Collector Seoni, District Seoni, M.P. 480661.

¶64

3. Sub-Divisional Officer (R) / Land Acquisition Officer Seoni, District - Seoni, M.P. 480661

¶65

--- Respondents

¶66

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶67

For Petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI.

¶68

For State/Respondent : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A.

¶69

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &

¶70

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Order On Board

09/04/2026

1. Heard.

4

2. As the identical issue is involved in these writ petitions, they are being heard and decided together by this common order.

¶76

3. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (for short ‘CAT’) by which the original applications filed by the respondent No.1/land losers, have been allowed relying upon the Railway Board instructions dated 11.11.2019. The issue has been considered and decided against the petitioners by order dated 23.03.2022. Thereafter, this Court in WPS No.5804/2022 maintained the finding recorded by the CAT and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. It further directed that if the land losers are otherwise eligible, necessary orders in this regard be issued within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶77

4. Paragraphs 6 to 8 of the order passed by the Tribunal states as under:-

¶78

“6. The issue involved in these Original Applications regarding applicability of Railway Board's instructions dated 11.11.2019 has already been considered and decided by this Tribunal in Original Application No.200/275/2021 on 23.03.2022. The operative paragraph of the order reads as under:

¶79

"6. It is undisputed fact that the land of the applicants' was acquired prior to issuance of RBE No.193/2019 dated 11.11.2019, which is clear as per the award passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 02.08.2019 (Annexure A-1). Para 5 of the RBE No.193/2019 clearly states that the policy shall be effective from the date of its issuance, meaning thereby, the persons whose land was acquired after issuance of RBE No.193/2019, shall be governed by the said policy. However, in the instant case, the land of the applicants was acquired much prior to issuance of RBE No.193/2019 and as such, case of the applicants ought to have been considered as per the earlier policy of the respondent department, which provides for employment

¶80

5

¶81

assistance apart from compensation. Moreover, this Tribunal in number of Original Applications has already adjudicated upon this issue and has held that the policy dated 11.11.2019 is applicable to only those land losers whose land was acquired after issuance of RBE No.193/2019 and the applications for appointment, whether received before 11.11.2019 or after 11.11.2019 are to be dealt with taking into consideration the date of acquisition of the land.

¶82

In view of the above, this Original Application is allowed and the impugned communications (Annexure A-6 collectively) are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the applicants for employment assistance, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order No order as to costs."

¶83

7. A similar view was also taken by this Tribunal in Original Application No.200/843/2021 decided on 08.04.2022 and the order of this Tribunal was also affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in WPS No.5804 of 2022 decided on 23.09.2022 observing as under:

¶84

"11. A perusal of the said policy would go to show that irrespective of whether the land acquisition for railway projects was done through the Railways Act, 1989 after declaring it as Special Railway Project or through State Governments, determination of compensation shall be made in accordance with the First, Second and Third Schedules of the Act of 2013 and accordingly, the policy of offering appointment in Railways to affected land losers was withdrawn and circulars issued in that regard were superseded.

¶85

Clause 5 of the policy, however, makes it amply clear that the new policy shall be effective from the date of the issue of the letter. Therefore, there is no manner of doubt that the earlier policy which was withdrawn continued to remain in force till issuance of the notification dated 11.11.2019"

¶86

8. Since this issue has already been decided by this Tribunal, which has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble

¶87

6

¶88

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in WPS No.5804 of 2022 (supra), we direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicants for employment assistance in view of the observations made hereinabove and if they are otherwise eligible issue necessary orders in this regard within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶89

5. Thus, the issue involved in these writ petitions has already been adjudicated in WPS No.5804/2022, therefore, in that view of matter, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur is fully justified in granting the original application. Being thus, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions and accordingly, the same deserve to be and are hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶90

6. Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stand disposed of.

¶91

Sd/Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge

¶92

Deepti Jha

Union of India v. Sharad Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Sharad Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Income Tax Officer - 1(1) Vs Piramal Petroleum Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Rose Construction, Vs the Manager

Manish Kumar Manikpuri Vs Union of India

Union of India Vs Trilok Chand Kothari

Union of India Vs Ajay Yadav

Union of India Vs Durgesh Sahu