Case: ANIL KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

was revisited. The circular, insofar as it is relevant, reads thus: 2. The whole issue has been deliberated upon at length in the full board meeting and it has been decided that no cognizance by way of offering employment to displaced persons should be given wherein only a strip of land (viz., for construction of a line) has been acquired but the same can be considered in Group D posts only wherein large area, house or substantial livelihood has been taken away/snapped in the process. 3. It has further been decided by the board that past cases where recruitments are already in process or where any commitment has been given to provide employment by the competent authority, such recruitment process should be finalised and employment provided in Group D posts only to eligible persons. 13. In the Writ Petition which the petitioner filed before the High Court, the prayer for mandamus was specifically based on the Railway Board Circular dated 19 April 2006. The relevant averments in the writ petition reads thus; 9. That it is submitted that the Collector, Bhojpur, Ara vide Memo No. 211 dated 07.06.2008 sent a list of persons whose house was demolished with recommendation for employment and the list finds place the name of Lalan Pandey. The Executive Engineer, Cons., E.C. Railway, Ara has written a letter dated 08.08.2008 to Dy. Chief Engineer, Con./E.C. Railway/Danapur mentioning therein that Lalan Pandey is a completely displaced person due to construction of new line and his livelihood has suffered due to displacement. It was requested for consideration of the Petitioners case for job in Railways in terms of Railway Boards letter dated 19.04.2006. 14. The response of the Railways to the above averment contained no denial of the averments contained in paragraph 9. Paragraph 10 of the response reads as follows:- 10. That with regard to statement made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition it is stated that the same is a matter of records, hence there is no comments. 15. The learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition, observing that a claim for appointment in service, apart from an entitlement to compensation for the acquisition of land, is by way of an exception. The High Court also held that the policy circular could not be applied since the acquisition in question was made prior to 2006. 16. The Letters Patent Appeal was rejected by the Division Bench relying upon the statement of the counsel for the Railways that employment had not been provided even in a single case for acquisition of land for the Ara Sasaram Railway project. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has, while assailing these findings submitted that the acquisition was in year 2006 and the case of the appellant is squarely governed by the policy circular. It was urged before this Court that the grounds which weighed with the authorities in rejecting the representation are contained in the speaking order dated 20 February 2013 of the General Manager of the East Central Railway which was passed in pursuance of the direction of the High Court. It was urged that the policy circular, contrary to what is stated in the order, would encompass the case of the appellant since the entirety of the house belonging to the appellant had been demolished. Hence the fact that only a strip of land was involved would not disentitle the appellant for the grant of relief. 18. On the other hand, Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the policy circular dated 1 January 1983 as well as the subsequent policy circular dated 19 April 2006 must be read together. It was urged that as a matter of fact, para 3 of the policy circular dated 19 April 2006 stipulated that past cases where recruitments were already in process and where commitment had been given to provide employment should be finalised and employment be provided in Group D posts only to the eligible persons. In the circumstances, it was urged that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the policy circular. 19. The policy circular dated 1 January 1983 was specifically adverted to in the subsequent circular dated 19 April 2006. The subsequent circular stipulates that the Railway Board had decided that the policy to offer employment to displaced persons should not cover displaced persons where only a strip of land had been acquired. At the same time, it stipulated that the claim can be considered for appointment against a Group D post where a large area, house or substantial livelihood has been taken away/snapped in the process . The case of the appellant fell within the ambit of paragraph 2 of the circular dated 19 April 2006. In rejecting the application of the appellant, the ground which weighed with the Railway Authorities was that only a strip of land belonging to the appellant had been acquired. This is not a correct reading of the circular. The circular contemplates that when a large area, house or substantial livelihood have been taken away, the case for providing alternative employment in a Group D post would be considered. Those phrases are disjunctive. The entire house of the appellant was demolished. It was stated that there was no specific guideline from the Railway authorities to provide a job in lieu of acquisition of land in Ara-Sasaram project. This was not a valid ground to reject the claim, once there was a general policy circular dated 19 April 2006 which held the field. 20. In the counter affidavit that was filed before the High Court, an additional ground was sought to be urged namely that it was only if an exception is granted by the Ministry of Railways that the application would be considered for appointment in accordance with the prevailing norms. There is no justification for this submission since it would result in the exercise of a pick and choose approach, contrary to the policy circular dated 19 April 2006.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]19. The policy circular dated 1 January 1983 was specifically adverted to in the subsequent circular dated 19 April 2006. The subsequent circular stipulates that the Railway Board had decided that the policy to offer employment to displaced persons should not cover displaced persons where only a strip of land had been acquired. At the same time, it stipulated that the claim can be considered for appointment against a Group D post where a large area, house or substantial livelihood has been taken away/snapped in the process . The case of the appellant fell within the ambit of paragraph 2 of the circular dated 19 April 2006. In rejecting the application of the appellant, the ground which weighed with the Railway Authorities was that only a strip of land belonging to the appellant had been acquired. This is not a correct reading of the circular. The circular contemplates that when a large area, house or substantial livelihood have been taken away, the case for providing alternative employment in a Group D post would be considered. Those phrases are disjunctive. The entire house of the appellant was demolished. It was stated that there was no specific guideline from the Railway authorities to provide a job in lieu of acquisition of land in Ara-Sasaram project. This was not a valid ground to reject the claim, once there was a general policy circular dated 19 April 2006 which held the field20. In the counter affidavit that was filed before the High Court, an additional ground was sought to be urged namely that it was only if an exception is granted by the Ministry of Railways that the application would be considered for appointment in accordance with the prevailing norms. There is no justification for this submission since it would result in the exercise of a pick and choose approach, contrary to the policy circular dated 19 April 2006.