IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11245 of 2003 1. Kanistha Kumar Jha, son of Late Bisheshwar Jha, resident of village- Sujapur, P.S. Bounsi, District- Banka. 2. Ajay Kumar son of Dinesh Jha, resident of village- Sujapur, P.S. Bounsi, District- Banka. 3. Chandra Kumar Thakur, son of Bipin Kumar Thakur, resident of village- Sujapur, P.S.- Bounsi, District- Banka – Petitioners. Versus 1. The Union of India through Ministry of Railway, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi. 3. The General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta. 4. The Chief Personnel Officer (Construction), Eastern Railway, Calcutta. 5. The Chief Engineer (Construction) Eastern Railway, Calcutta. 6. The D.R.M., Eastern Railway, Malda (W.B.) 7. The Dy. Chief Engineer, Construction, Eastern Railway, Bhagalpur. 8. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 9. The D.M., Banka. 10. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Banka. ************** For the petitioner: Mr. Rajib Ranjan Jha, Advocate. For the Respondents Eastern Railway:Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the State of Bihar : Binod Kumar,AC to SC 16. 7/ 03-02-2011 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction upon the respondent-authorities of Ministry of Railway, Government of India, for considering their claims for appointment either on grade-C or grade-D posts, as their lands have been acquired for the purpose of construction of new B.G. Railway line between Mandar Hill to Rampur Hat via Dumka. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for construction of aforesaid Railway line, lands belonging to the petitioners or their family members were acquired by the competent authority under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. After completion of proceeding for acquisition of lands, an award was prepared in the name of petitioner no.1 as also in the name of mother of petitioners no. 2 and 3 separately. By referring to Annexures- 5 and 6, it is submitted that 62 decimals of land belonging to petitioner no.1 has been acquired, whereas 28 decimals of land belonging to Sunanda Devi, mother of petitioner no.2 and 32 decimals of land belonging to Suman Devi, mother of petitioner no.3, have been acquired for the purpose of construction of aforesaid Railway line. 4. By placing reliance on a policy decision dated 10.11.1989 (Annexure-10) issued under the signature of Dy. Director Establishment (N), Railway Board, it is submitted that the petitioners, being displaced persons/ land losers were entitled to be considered for their appointment on any Group-C or Group-D post. However, despite the aforesaid policy decision and despite the fact that the petitioners are land losers and no other persons of their family have been provided employment by the respondent-authorities, yet their claims for appointment 3 have not been considered and they are moving from pillar to post for redressal of their valid grievance. It is also submitted that after acquisition of the lands of the petitioners under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, possession was handed over to the respondent- Railway authorities on 03.03.2001 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Medium Irrigation Project, Bhagalpur (Annexure-R/1 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 7). It is highlighted that at the time of acquisition of the lands in question, and when the possession of the land was handed over to the respondent- Railway- authorities, the policy decision dated 10.11.1989 (Annexure-10) was still in vogue and, therefore, the respondent-authorities were obliged to act in accordance with their own policy decision. 5. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 7 and respondents no. 8 to 10 have placed their reliance on the averments made in their counter affidavit filed separately. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners had submitted their applications for providing them job on Group-C or Group- D posts due to acquisition of their lands for construction of Railway line in question, which were duly forwarded to the respondent- authorities of the Railways. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4 respondent-Railways has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and submits that policy decision dated 10.11.1989 (Annexure-10) was subsequently clarified by letter dated 19.04.2006 (Annexure-19), wherein it was contemplated that if for construction of a railway line, a strip of land was acquired, then in that case the land losers shall not be provided any employment. He has also pointed out that the petitioners have not categorically stated that because of acquisition of land in question, they have become homeless or their source of livelihood has been snatched. If that would have been the case, then their claims could have been considered for appointment on Group-D posts only. Learned counsel for the respondent- Railways has also drawn attention of this Court towards an order dated 04.01.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10431 of 2003 (Annexure-R/3 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 7), whereby the cases of similarly situated persons were referred for adjudication by the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata and/or the Chief Administrative Officer, Eastern Railway, Kolkata. 7. Having heard the parties and after considering their submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claims of the petitioners are also required to be considered appropriately by the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata and/or the Chief Personnel Officer 5 (Construction), Eastern Railway, Kolkata, respondents No. 3 and 4 herein. 8. Admittedly, when the lands belonging to the petitioners were acquired and its possession was handed over to the respondent-Railways, then at that time policy decision dated 10.11.1989 was still in vogue. Therefore, their claims are required to be considered in the light of aforesaid policy decision. Subsequent policy decision dated 19.04.2006 (Annexure-19) would be applicable in future cases and that cannot be applied, so far as the claim of the petitioners are concerned. However, the authorities shall be fully justified to examine the claim of the petitioners to satisfy themselves, as to whether they fulfill the requirement of the conditions as stipulated in the policy decision dated 10.11.1989 (Annexure-10). The petitioners shall be obliged to furnish all the relevant documents before the authorities concerned in support of their claims for appointment. 9. The petitioners are hereby directed to appear before respondents no. 3 or 4 within one month from today with a detailed representation regarding their claims accompanied by a certified copy of this order. The respondent-authorities shall be obliged to decide their claim within three months from the date of filing of the representation along with the certified copy of this order by 6 a speaking order in the light of observations made above. If the claims of the petitioners find favour, then consequential order shall also be issued without unnecessary delay. 10. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)