Disposed

Sanjay Kuamr and Ors. v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Patna HC10 Aug 2016CWJC/22632/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Court directed the respondents-Railway to permit the petitioners to ventilate their grievance regarding employment claims before the competent authority. The writ application was disposed of to allow the petitioners to approach the appropriate administrative body for consideration in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to permit petitioners to ventilate grievance before the competent Railway authority.

Sanjay Kuamr and Ors. Vs The Union Of India and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22632 of 2013

¶2

===================================================

¶3

Sanjay Kumar S/O Tej Narayan Singh, S/O Late Kamla Singh R/O Village - Chulhai Chak, P.O. Khagaul, P.S. Danapur ( Rupaspur ), District - Patna

¶4

Nagendra Kumar S/O Devendra Singh, S/O Late Mital Singh R/O Village - Chulhai Chak, P.O. Khagaul, P.S. Danapur ( Rupaspur ), District - Patna

¶5

Sujit Kumar S/O Birendra Singh, S/O Late Mital Singh R/O Village - Chulhai Chak, P.O. Khagaul, P.S. Danapur ( Rupaspur ), District - Patna

¶6

Prince Patel S/O Awadhesh Kumar Singh, S/O Sri Brahamdeo Singh R/O Village - Chulhai Chak, P.O. Khagaul, P.S. Danapur ( Rupaspur ), District - Patna

¶7

Sanjay Kumar S/O Satendra Singh, S/O Late Kamal Singh R/O Village - Chulhai Chak, P.O. Khagaul, P.S. Danapur ( Rupaspur ), District - Patna

¶8

Mukesh Kumar S/O Upendra Singh, S/O Late Rajdeo Singh R/O Village - Chulhai Chak, P.O. Khagaul, P.S. Danapur ( Rupaspur ), District - Patna

¶9

Surendra Kumar S/O Late Rajballam Singh R/O Village - Chulhai Chak, P.O. Khagaul, P.S. Danapur ( Rupaspur ), District - Patna

¶10

Rahul Kumar S/O Omprakash R/O Village - Chulhai Chak, P.O. Khagaul, P.S. Danapur ( Rupaspur ), District - Patna 9. Ranjeeta Kumari W/O Rakesh Kumar R/O Village - Chulhai Chak, P.O. Khagaul, P.S. Danapur ( Rupaspur ), District - Patna

¶11

Abhishek Ranjan S/O Late Rajeev Ranjan, S/O Brahmdeo Singh R/O Village - Chulhai Chak, P.O. Khagaul, P.S. Danapur ( Rupaspur ), District - Patna

¶12

Lukcy Kumar S/O Parfull Chandra Sudhanshu, S/O Chinta Devi @ Dukhani Devi R/O Village - Jalalpur, P.O. Dhanaut, P.S. Danapur ( Rupaspur ), District - Patna

¶13

Sameer Singh S/O Chitranjan Prasad Singh, S/O Late Ram Sawarath Singh R/O Village - Jalalpur, P.O. Dhanaut, P.S. Danapur ( Rupaspur ), District - Patna

¶14

Shahil Kumar S/O Chandeshwar Prasad R/O Village - Chulhai Chak, P.O. Khagaul, P.S. Danapur ( Rupaspur ), District - Patna

¶15

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus

¶16

The Union Of India Through Secretary, Department Of Railway, Railway Bhawan, New Delhi

¶17

The Secretary, Department Of Railway, Railway Bhawan, New Delhi

¶18

The Chief Engineer (Construction ), Eastern, Danapur Division, Danapur

¶19

The Deputy Chief Engineer ( Construction ), Eastern, Danapur Division, Danapur

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.22632 of 2013 dt.10-08-2016

¶21

2/4

¶22

The Chief Manager, E.M. Railway, Hajipur ( Bihar )

¶23

The District Magistrate, Patna 7. The District Magistrate, Saran 8. The A.D.M., Patna ( Land Acquisition ) 9. A.D.M., Saran ( Land Acquisition )

¶24

The District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna 11. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Saran 12. The S.D.O. Patna Sadar, District - Patna 13. The Circle Officer, Danapur, District - Patna 14. The Circle Officer, Sonepur, District - Saran 15. The Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Calcutta

¶25

.... .... Respondent/s

¶26

=================================================== Appearance :

¶27

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha, advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv.

¶28

=================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 10-08-2016

¶30

The writ application prays for a direction upon the respondents for grant of employment in appropriate category with the respondent-Railway on the ground that they constitute and represent a family which can be considered as the land oustee/land losers owing to acquisition of their land for the respondent-Railway.

¶31

It has been submitted that the petitioners belonged to the displaced families as a result of acquisition of land on the South bank of River Ganga for the respondent-Railway for construction of Ganga bridge. It has further been submitted that the claim of several land losers have been considered and allowed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.09.2012 passed in CWJC No. 8283 of 2005 (Annexure-1). In this connection he has also referred to a recommendation made to the District Collector by the Chief

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.22632 of 2013 dt.10-08-2016

¶33

3/4 Engineer, Construction, E.C.Railway, Patna (Annexure-3). On the basis of the aforesaid, it has been submitted that the petitioners are also entitled to consideration by the respondent Railway for employment in appropriate category as they are the land losers, according to the policy decision of the respondent-Railway.

¶34

Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate for the respondents, states that it does not appear from a reading of the writ application that any such application/representation was filed before the appropriate/competent authority of the respondent-Railway which was considered and rejected. It has next been submitted that the claim of the petitioners is for employment with the respondentRailway. Any such matter can be raised before the Administrative Tribunal, Patna under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. He has relied on a judgment of this Court since reported in 2014(3) PLJR 724 ( Chini Thakur and other vs. The Union of India through Chairman, Railways Board, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi & Ors.) in order to urge that the present writ application is not maintainable .

¶35

On going through the diverse pleadings, it is found that the petitioners have not ventilated their grievance before the competent/appropriate authority which has been considered and declined/rejected. The ends of justice, in my opinion, shall be sub served if the writ application is disposed of permitting the petitioners to ventilate their grievance before the competent/appropriate authority

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.22632 of 2013 dt.10-08-2016

¶37

4/4

¶38

of the respondent-Railway for consideration in accordance with law. Needless to observe while doing so, the respondents would also take into consideration the order passed by this Court in CWJC No.8283 of 2005 (Annexure-1).

¶39

The writ application stands disposed of.

¶40

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶41

Shyam/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading 20.08.2016 Date Transmission Date

Sanjay Kuamr and Ors. v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kuamr and Ors. v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankar Ram Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md. Arif Vs Managing Director M/s Bata India Ltd. and Ors.

Ranjit Kumar Ambasta Vs Managing Director M/s Bata India Ltd. and Ors.

Gopal Narayan Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sheela Devi and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Tar Mohammad Vs The State Of Bihar Through Sri Anjani Kumar Singh The Chief Secretary Govt. Of Bihar and Ors.