The Union of India vs Kiran Devi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.975 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16222 of 2017
CNR No. BRHC010976832024
======================================================
1. The Union of India x
2. The General Manager East Central Railway, Hajipur.
3. The General Manager Personnel, East Centralo Railway, Hajipur.
4. The Senior Personnel Officer, Recruitment, East Central Railway, Hajipur.
5. The Assistant Personnel Officer Recrutiment, East Central Railway, Hajipur.
6. The Divisional Rail Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur.
7. The Chief Engineer, Construction, East Central Railway, Danapur.
8. The District Magistrate, Patna.
9. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Kiran Devi Wife of Anil Kumar Resident of Village- Nisibuchak, P.O.-
Fatuha, P.S.- Fatuha, District- Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Anand Kumar Ojha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Kumar Kaushik, Advocate
Mr.Piyush Hari Ojha, Advocate
Mrs.Namrata Dubey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)
Date : 28-10-2026
I. Introduction
This intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters
Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated
20.04.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16222 of 2017, whereby the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
2/35
order dated 08.08.2017 issued by the General Manager
(Personnel), East Central Railway, rejecting the claim of the
writ petitioner for appointment of her nominee on the ground
of land acquisition, has been quashed. The learned Single
Judge has further directed the Railway authorities to consider
the candidature of the writ petitioner’s son for appointment
within a period of three months.
The core controversy that arises for consideration is
whether the writ petitioner, whose land measuring 0.40 acres
was acquired for the development of goods handling facilities
at Fatuha Railway Station, is entitled to a direction for
consideration of her son’s candidature for appointment under
the land-loser preferential employment scheme of the
Railways, in the facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly after the long lapse of time, the earlier directions
of this Court, the rejection of the claim of the original
nominee (her husband) on the ground of age-bar, and the
subsequent refusal to permit change of nomination.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants
(Union of India & Ors.) and learned counsel for the
respondent (writ petitioner) at length and have perused the
written notes of arguments submitted on both sides, the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
3/35
impugned judgment, and the material placed on record.
II. Factual Matrix
The essential facts, as they emerge from the pleadings
and the material placed on record, may be stated as under:
The landed property of the writ petitioner measuring
0.40 acres (Survey Plot No. 1401 of Khata No. 0211, Plot No.
1476 of Khata No. 190 and Plot No. 1425 of Khata No. 101)
was acquired by the State of Bihar for the East Central
Railway for the purpose of development of goods handling
facilities at Fatuha Railway Station. The acquisition
proceedings were completed in L.A. Case No. 20/89-90.
The Ministry of Railways had taken a policy decision
to provide employment to members of families who were
physically displaced on account of acquisition of their house
or whose livelihood was materially affected by the acquisition
of land. By letter dated 30.07.1991, the Railways informed the
Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department,
Government of Bihar, to identify such individuals. A further
communication was addressed to the District Magistrate,
Patna on 11.03.1991 seeking a list of eligible persons.
Pursuant thereto, the Sub-Divisional Officer conducted an
enquiry and submitted a report to the District Land

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
4/35
Acquisition Officer, Patna, identifying 44 families vide letter
dated 14.09.1993. The name of the writ petitioner appears at
Serial No. 30 in the said list.
The writ petitioner nominated her husband, Anil
Kumar, for appointment and submitted a representation dated
09.10.1995. Several other similarly situated persons also
raised claims. A batch of writ petitions, including C.W.J.C.
No. 3274 of 1999, was disposed of on 13.05.1999 with a
direction to the Railways to consider the cases of eligible
persons within one year.
The writ petitioner continued to represent her claim. In
the meantime, one Manju Devi (whose name also figured in
the list of affected families and whose land measuring 0.49
acres had been acquired) filed C.W.J.C. No. 7918 of 2006,
which was dismissed on the ground of delay. Her Letters
Patent Appeal No. 212 of 2012 was allowed by a Division
Bench of this Court on 23.03.2012 with a direction to the
Railways to offer her appointment before 31.05.2012.
Relying upon the said decision, the writ petitioner
filed C.W.J.C. No. 517 of 2009 seeking a direction for
consideration of her husband’s candidature. The said writ
petition was disposed of on 17.08.2012 with a direction to the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
5/35
respondents to appoint the petitioner’s husband in accordance
with his eligibility within a reasonable time, treating the case
as similarly situated with that of Manju Devi.
Alleging non-compliance, the writ petitioner filed
Contempt Application M.J.C. No. 6273 of 2013. During the
pendency of the contempt proceedings, the Railways issued
communications dated 21.08.2014, 27.04.2015 and
15.09.2016 calling upon the petitioner to furnish certain
documents. The petitioner submitted some documents and
sought further time. On 26.10.2016 and thereafter, she
requested that her son, Chandan Kumar, be considered in
place of her husband, who had in the meantime become over-
age. The Railways, by communication dated 31.03.2017,
insisted that the claim be confined to the husband. Further
correspondence ensued. Ultimately, by the order dated
08.08.2017, the General Manager (Personnel), East Central
Railway, closed the claim of the husband on the ground that
he was age-barred (and was so even in 2012) and declined the
request for change of nomination in favour of the son.
The writ petitioner challenged the order dated
08.08.2017 by filing the writ petition which has given rise to
the present appeal. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
6/35
judgment and order dated 20.04.2024, quashed the order dated
08.08.2017 and directed the Railways to consider the
candidature of the writ petitioner’s son within three months,
placing reliance, inter alia, on the decision of a learned Single
Judge in Sumitra Devi v. Union of India, C.W.J.C. No.
21778 of 2019 .
It is not in dispute that the said decision in Sumitra
Devi (id) was set aside by a Division Bench of this Court in
L.P.A. No. 465 of 2022 (with analogous appeals) by judgment
dated 21.03.2024, a short time before the pronouncement of
the impugned order.
The rival stands on facts, particularly regarding supply
of documents, the exact reasons for rejection, the
appointments allegedly given to other persons on the list of 44
families (including the family of Manju Devi), and the
applicability of subsequent policy circulars, form the subject-
matter of the submissions that follow.
III. Submissions on behalf of the Appellants:
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
impugned judgment and order dated 20.04.2024 is
unsustainable in law and on facts for the following principal
reasons:

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
7/35
A. Foundation of the impugned order stands removed
The learned Single Judge has placed substantial
reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge in Sumitra
Devi (id) . The said decision was set aside by a Division Bench
of this Court in L.P.A. No. 465 of 2022 (with connected
appeals) by judgment dated 21.03.2024, rendered about a
month prior to the impugned order. The Division Bench has
clearly held that any claim for appointment on the ground of
land acquisition must be examined on its individual facts and
strictly in accordance with the policy guidelines in force. The
very foundation of the impugned judgment having been
knocked out, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge
cannot be sustained.
B. Threshold eligibility is only a gateway; the claim
must satisfy the principles governing compassionate
appointment
Even assuming that the writ petitioner had a threshold
entitlement as a land-loser, the Railways are bound to examine
the claim on the touchstone of the law governing
compassionate appointment. The Division Bench in Sumitra
Devi (id) has reiterated that the principles laid down in
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
8/35
138 , apply with equal force to land-acquisition related
appointments. Preferential treatment is subject to fulfilment of
all other conditions of the policy, including educational
qualifications, age, medical fitness and suitability. Reliance
has been placed on Union of India v. Shankar Prasad Deep,
(2019) 16 SCC 286 , and the Railway Board guidelines of
1983 and 2006, which confine the benefit to recruitment
within a stipulated period, to persons who have not received
alternative land or other benefits, and who fulfil the prescribed
qualifications.
C. No statutory right to employment; policy cannot
enlarge the statute
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 confers only a right to
compensation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjeev
Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1079) has
held that on acquisition the landowner or his family is entitled
only to compensation and that a policy of providing
employment cannot prevail over the statutory scheme. The
claim in the present case, raised and pursued after inordinate
delay, is liable to be rejected on this ground as well.
D. Delay and non-survival of the object of the scheme
The land was acquired in L.A. Case No. 20/89-90. The

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
9/35
original claim was for the husband in 2009; the son was put
forward for the first time only in 2016-2017. Compassionate
or preferential appointment is neither a vested nor a heritable
right. It is intended to meet an immediate financial crisis and
cannot be claimed after the crisis has passed or after a
considerable lapse of time. Reliance has been placed on the
principles restated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, (2025) 5 SCC 712 . The
learned Single Judge has directed consideration of a substitute
nominee first proposed in 2017, without adequately
addressing the aspect of delay.
E. Change of nomination and eligibility
Railway Board circular RBE No. 99/2010 (particularly
paragraph 7) contains no provision for change of nomination
during the pendency of consideration of a claim. The request
for substitution of the son in place of the husband was,
therefore, rightly declined. Further, the learned Single Judge
has not examined whether the son fulfils the eligibility criteria
of age, educational qualification, medical fitness and
suitability, or whether the acquisition resulted in loss of
homestead or substantial livelihood. These are matters
required to be verified by the Railways in terms of the policy

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
10/35
and the law laid down in Shankar Prasad Deep (supra) .
F. Prayer
On the aforesaid grounds, it has been prayed that the
appeal be allowed, the impugned judgment and order dated
20.04.2024 be set aside, and the order dated 08.08.2017 of the
Railway authorities be restored.
IV. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent
Learned counsel for the respondent (writ petitioner)
supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted
that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the following
reasons:
A. Parity and hostile discrimination
The case of the writ petitioner is identical to that of
Manju Devi (L.P.A. No. 212 of 2012) , whose land measuring
0.49 acres had been acquired and whose family member was
appointed in the year 2014. The writ petitioner’s name appears
at Serial No. 30 in the list of 44 families identified by the
revenue authorities in 1993. It is asserted that 33 out of the
said 44 families were extended the benefit of appointment.
Specific serial numbers on the list were offered employment
without insistence on age or eligibility bars. The appellants
have not specifically denied these assertions in their counter-

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
11/35
affidavit. The writ petitioner has, therefore, been subjected to
hostile discrimination in violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
B. Continuity of earlier judicial directions
In C.W.J.C. No. 517 of 2009, this Court, by order
dated 17.08.2012, directed the Railways to appoint the writ
petitioner’s husband in accordance with his eligibility within a
reasonable time, treating the case as similarly situated with
that of Manju Devi. The subsequent contempt petition
(M.J.C. No. 6273 of 2013) was disposed of with a positive
direction to process and settle the claim in accordance with
law. Relying upon Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board
v. C. Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689 , it is submitted that the
directions issued in the first round of litigation continue to
bind the authorities and can be enforced in subsequent
proceedings.
C. Change of nomination and the principle that no
party can take advantage of its own default
The original nominee (husband) became over-age
solely on account of the prolonged inaction of the Railways.
Having themselves caused the delay, the appellants cannot be
permitted to reject the claim on the ground of age-bar and

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
12/35
simultaneously refuse permission to substitute the son. There
is no rule that prohibits or fetters the discretion of the Railway
authorities to allow a change of nomination. An executive
authority cannot unduly restrict its own discretionary power.
Reliance has been placed on the principle approved by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav (Minor) v. CBSE,
(2021) 7 SCC 535 (approving the Delhi High Court decision
in Dhruva Parate v. CBSE, ILR 2009 V Delhi 371) .
D. Governing policy and inapplicability of later
circulars
The claim is governed by the policy decision of the
Railways reflected in the communications of 1990-1991,
which provided for appointment of one member of a family
that was displaced or whose livelihood was materially
affected. The subsequent policy of 2006 and the Division
Bench judgment in L.P.A. No. 465 of 2022 have no
application to the present case, which arises from an earlier
acquisition and an earlier policy regime. Even otherwise, the
Division Bench itself recognised that a subsequent policy
would not govern claims arising under an earlier scheme.
E. Enforceability of the policy
Where the Union Government has framed a policy for

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
13/35
providing employment to land-losers, the terms of such policy
are enforceable in a court of law. Reliance has been placed on
Anil Kumar v. Union of India, (2019) 5 SCC 591 . The
prolonged wait of nearly three decades cannot be permitted to
defeat the object of a welfare measure intended to achieve
social justice.
F. Prayer
On the aforesaid grounds, it has been prayed that the
appeal be dismissed and the direction issued by the learned
Single Judge for consideration of the candidature of the writ
petitioner’s son be affirmed.
V. Points for Determination
On the basis of the pleadings, the written notes of
arguments, and the rival submissions, the following points
arise for determination in this appeal:
1. Whether the impugned judgment and order dated
20.04.2024 is rendered unsustainable on the ground that the
principal decision relied upon by the learned Single Judge
[Sumitra Devi, (supra)] had already been set aside by a
Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 465 of 2022 on
21.03.2024?
2. What is the governing policy framework applicable

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
14/35
to the claim of the writ petitioner, and whether the principles
governing compassionate appointment (including those
relating to delay, eligibility, and non-heritable character of the
right) apply to land-loser preferential appointments under the
Railway scheme?
3. What is the effect and continuing efficacy of the
directions issued by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 517 of 2009
(order dated 17.08.2012) and in the consequential contempt
proceedings (M.J.C. No. 6273 of 2013) ?
4. Whether the Railway authorities were justified in
declining the request for change of nomination from the
husband to the son, particularly when the original nominee
had become age-barred during the pendency of consideration?
5. Whether the claim stands defeated by inordinate
delay and whether the object of the preferential appointment
scheme survives after the long lapse of time from the date of
acquisition?
6. Whether the writ petitioner has established a case of
hostile discrimination or parity with other land-losers
(including Manju Devi) who were allegedly extended the
benefit of appointment?
7. What is the permissible scope of judicial review in

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
15/35
such matters, and whether the direction issued by the learned
Single Judge for consideration of the son’s candidature within
a stipulated period is legally sustainable?
8. To what relief, if any, are the parties entitled?
VI. Analysis and Findings
We now proceed to examine the points for
determination in the light of the factual matrix, the governing
legal principles, and the rival submissions.
Point No. 1: Effect of the Division Bench judgment in
L.P.A. No. 465 of 2022 on the foundation of the impugned
order.
It is not in dispute that the learned Single Judge, while
allowing the writ petition, placed significant reliance on the
decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in
Sumitra Devi (supra) , particularly paragraphs 14 and 15
thereof. The operative direction to consider the candidature of
the writ petitioner’s son within three months draws sustenance
from the approach adopted in that decision.
The said judgment in Sumitra Devi (id) was set aside
by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 465 of 2022 .
The Division Bench held, inter alia, that any consideration of
a claim for appointment on the ground of land acquisition

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
16/35
must be based on the individual facts of the case and strictly
in accordance with the policy guidelines in force. The
Division Bench emphasised that preferential appointment in
land-acquisition matters is not automatic and must conform to
the conditions of the applicable scheme.
The impugned judgment was pronounced on
20.04.2024, approximately one month after the Division
Bench decision. There is nothing on record to indicate that the
judgment of the Division Bench in Sumitra Devi (id) was
brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge.
When the principal authority relied upon by the
learned Single Judge has been reversed by a coordinate
Division Bench prior to the pronouncement of the impugned
order, the foundation of the reasoning stands substantially
weakened. This Court is bound by the law declared by the
Division Bench. Consequently, the approach adopted in the
impugned judgment, insofar as it proceeds on the basis of the
reversed decision in Sumitra Devi (id) , cannot be sustained in
its entirety.
This, however, does not automatically result in the
allowance of the appeal. The matter must still be examined
independently on the remaining points for determination, on

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
17/35
the basis of the factual matrix of the present case and the
applicable legal principles.
Point No. 2: Governing policy framework and
applicability of principles of compassionate appointment
The claim of the writ petitioner originates from the
acquisition of her land in L.A. Case No. 20/89-90 for the
goods handling facilities at Fatuha. The early communications
of the Railways (letters dated 30.07.1991 and 11.03.1991) and
the consequential identification of 44 families by the revenue
authorities in 1993 form the starting point of the scheme under
which the claim is founded. Those communications indicate
that the Railways had decided to consider employment for one
member of families that were physically displaced or whose
livelihood was materially affected by the acquisition.
The appellants have relied upon subsequent Railway
Board circulars, including the guidelines of 1983 [as noticed
in Anil Kumar v. Union of India, (supra) ], the circular of
19.04.2006, and RBE No. 99/2010, as well as the general
principles governing compassionate appointment. The
respondent, on the other hand, contends that the claim is
governed solely by the 1990-1991 policy regime and that later
circulars, as well as the Division Bench judgment in Sumitra

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
18/35
Devi (supra) , have no application.
On a careful consideration, this Court is of the view
that while the genesis of the claim lies in the earlier policy
decision of the Railways, the subsequent circulars and the
authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
cannot be ignored while examining the manner in which such
a claim is to be processed and decided. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Shankar Prasad Deep, (supra) , and in Anil Kumar
(supra) has treated land-loser preferential appointments as a
form of special dispensation subject to the conditions of the
scheme, including fulfilment of educational qualifications, age
requirements, medical fitness and suitability. The Division
Bench of this Court in Sumitra Devi (supra) has expressly
held that the principles laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal,
(supra) , apply with equal force to land-acquisition related
appointments.
Preferential appointment on the ground of land
acquisition is not a matter of right flowing directly from the
Land Acquisition Act. It is a benefit conferred by policy and
must be administered in accordance with the conditions of that
policy and the larger principles that govern any exception to
the normal mode of recruitment. Those principles include that

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
19/35
the benefit is intended to mitigate immediate hardship, that it
is not a vested or heritable right, and that it is subject to the
candidate satisfying the prescribed eligibility criteria.
The recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sanjeev Kumar (supra) further clarifies that the statute itself
confers only a right to compensation and that a policy of
providing employment cannot override or enlarge the
statutory scheme. While that decision does not denude an
existing policy of all force, it reinforces the limited and
conditional nature of the benefit.
Accordingly, this Court holds that the claim of the writ
petitioner must be examined in the light of the original policy
decision that generated the list of 44 families, read
consistently with the subsequent authoritative
pronouncements that regulate the grant of such preferential
appointments. The benefit is not automatic; it remains subject
to fulfilment of eligibility conditions and the overall object of
the scheme.
Point No. 3: Effect and continuing efficacy of the
directions issued in C.W.J.C. No. 517 of 2009 and the
contempt proceedings
By order dated 17.08.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
20/35
517 of 2009 , this Court directed the Railway authorities to
appoint the writ petitioner’s husband in accordance with his
eligibility within a reasonable time, noticing that the case was
similarly situated with that of Manju Devi (supra) . The
subsequent contempt petition ( M.J.C. No. 6273 of 2013 ) was
disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner furnished the
required information within a stipulated period, the Railways
would process and settle the claim in accordance with law
within a further period of two months.
The direction issued in 2012 was not an unconditional
mandamus to appoint regardless of eligibility. It expressly
qualified the obligation with the following words:
I find that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by
decision dated 23.03.2012 passed in L.P.A. No. 212 of 2012. I
accordingly issue similar direction to the respondents to
appoint the petitioner’s husband in accordance with his
eligibility within a reasonable time.
The contempt order similarly directed settlement in the
following words:
Keeping in view the aforesaid, it is directed that in
case the petitioner submits the requisite information before
the Competent Authority of the Railway Administration within

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
21/35
a reasonable period, preferably within a period of two months
from today, the competent authority of the Railway
Administration shall process the claim and settle it in
accordance with law within a period of further two months.
These directions kept the claim alive for consideration.
They did not crystallise an indefeasible right to appointment,
nor did they preclude the authorities from examining age,
suitability, or other policy conditions.
The respondent’s reliance on Commissioner,
Karnataka Housing Board (supra) , is well placed to the
extent that earlier directions do not automatically lapse merely
because contempt proceedings have concluded. At the same
time, the authorities remained entitled, while complying with
the direction to process the claim, to apply the eligibility
criteria and the governing policy. The order dated 08.08.2017
records that the husband was age-barred (and was so even in
2012). Whether that finding is factually correct is a different
matter; what is clear is that the earlier judicial directions did
not prohibit the authorities from examining the question of
eligibility.
Thus, while the claim could not be rejected on the
ground that it had become stale solely by reason of the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
22/35
pendency of proceedings, the directions of 2012 and 2017 did
not convert a conditional policy benefit into an absolute right,
nor did they compel the Railways to ignore the age bar or to
accept an automatic substitution of nominee.
Point No. 4: Legality of refusal to permit change of
nomination
The original nominee of the writ petitioner was her
husband, Anil Kumar. During the pendency of the claim, and
particularly after the order dated 17.08.2012, the husband
crossed the upper age limit. The writ petitioner thereafter
requested, on more than one occasion between October 2016
and May 2017, that her son, Chandan Kumar, be considered in
place of the husband. The Railway authorities declined the
request and, by the order dated 08.08.2017, closed both the
claim of the husband (on the ground of age-bar) and the
request for change of nomination.
The appellants have relied upon RBE No. 99/2010,
paragraph 7 whereof, according to them, contains no
provision for change of nomination once the process of
consideration has commenced. The respondent contends that
there is no express prohibition against change of nomination,
that the age-bar arose solely on account of the prolonged

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
23/35
delay attributable to the Railways, and that an authority
cannot take advantage of its own default or unduly fetter its
discretion.
This Court is of the considered view that the question
cannot be answered in the abstract. Preferential appointment
under a land-loser scheme is ordinarily limited to one member
of the affected family. The scheme does not create a family
roster that can be activated at will by successive nominations
over an indefinite period. At the same time, when the original
nominee becomes ineligible by efflux of time during the
pendency of consideration, and when that efflux of time is
substantially attributable to the administrative process, a rigid
refusal to consider an otherwise eligible substitute nominee
from the same family may, in appropriate cases, partake the
character of arbitrariness.
The material on record shows that the Railways
themselves took considerable time in processing the claim
even after the 2012 direction and the contempt proceedings.
Communications seeking documents were issued years later.
In such circumstances, the refusal to examine the request for
substitution solely on the ground that the circular is silent,
without considering whether the son satisfies the eligibility

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
24/35
criteria and whether the family continues to fulfil the object of
the scheme, appears to be an unduly narrow exercise of
discretion.
This is not to say that change of nomination is a matter
of right, or that the son is automatically entitled to
consideration. It only means that the authorities ought to have
examined the request on its own merits rather than rejecting it
on a pure technicality of absence of an enabling provision.
The learned Single Judge was, therefore, not in error in taking
the view that the rejection of the request for change of
nomination, in the facts of the present case, could not be
sustained on the grounds assigned in the order dated
08.08.2017.
Point No. 5: Delay and survival of the object of the
scheme
The acquisition took place in L.A. Case No. 20/89-90.
The writ petitioner’s name was included in the list of 44
families prepared in 1993. The first substantive writ petition
by her was filed in 2009, and the son was put forward as a
nominee only in 2016-2017. The impugned direction of the
learned Single Judge was issued in 2024.
The principles governing compassionate and

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
25/35
analogous preferential appointments have been consistently
reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Umesh Kumar
Nagpal (supra) and more recently in Debabrata Tiwari,
(supra) , it has been held that such appointment is not a vested
right, is not heritable, and is intended to enable the family to
overcome an immediate financial crisis. It cannot be claimed
after the crisis has passed or after an inordinate lapse of time.
These principles apply with equal force to land-loser
preferential appointments, as held by the Division Bench of
this Court in Sumitra Devi (supra) and as recognised by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shankar Prasad Deep (supra) .
The object of the scheme is to mitigate the hardship caused by
acquisition, not to create a perpetual source of recruitment for
successive generations of the family.
At the same time, the delay in the present case is not
entirely one-sided. The claim was kept alive by judicial orders
of 2012 and by the contempt proceedings. The authorities
themselves took years to call for documents and to pass a final
order. In these circumstances, while the long passage of time
is a relevant and weighty factor, it cannot be the sole ground
for non-suiting the writ petitioner without a proper
examination of whether the family still satisfies the basic

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
26/35
conditions of the scheme and whether the proposed nominee
is eligible.
The learned Single Judge has not adequately addressed
the aspect of delay and the survival of the object of the
scheme. A bare direction to consider the son’s candidature,
without requiring the authorities to examine the continuing
relevance of the claim in the light of the long lapse of time, is
incomplete. The factor of delay must form an essential part of
any fresh consideration.
Point No. 6: Plea of parity with other land-losers
The respondent has laid considerable stress on the plea
of parity and hostile discrimination. It is asserted that the writ
petitioner’s case is identical to that of Manju Devi (supra) ,
whose family member was appointed in 2014, and that 33 out
of the 44 families identified in the 1993 list were extended the
benefit of appointment. Specific serial numbers are stated to
have received appointments without insistence on age or
eligibility bars. It is further submitted that these assertions
have not been specifically denied in the counter-affidavit filed
by the appellants.
Article 14 of the Constitution requires that persons
similarly situated be treated alike. If it is established that

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
27/35
under the same scheme and in respect of the same acquisition,
a large number of identically placed land-losers were granted
the benefit while the writ petitioner was denied the same
without any rational basis, a case of hostile discrimination
would be made out.
The material placed before this Court, however, is not
conclusive. The assertion regarding appointment of the son of
Manju Devi and of members of 33 other families rests largely
on the pleadings of the writ petitioner and the alleged absence
of specific denial. The appellants have not filed any
comprehensive chart or affidavit placing on record the fate of
each of the 44 claims. At the same time, the absence of a clear
and categorical denial of the specific averments made in the
writ petition does lend some weight to the respondent’s
contention.
This Court is of the view that the plea of
discrimination cannot be finally decided only on the basis of
the affidavits presently on record. It is a matter that requires
verification of primary facts by the Railway authorities
themselves. If, upon such verification, it is found that a large
number of similarly situated families from the same list were
granted appointment while the writ petitioner was singled out

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
28/35
for rejection on grounds not uniformly applied, the authorities
would be obliged to remove the discrimination. Conversely, if
the other appointments were made under distinguishable
circumstances or in accordance with eligibility criteria that the
present claimant does not satisfy, the plea of parity would fail.
The learned Single Judge has not undertaken any
detailed examination of this aspect. In the fresh consideration
that this Court proposes to direct, the plea of parity shall be
examined by the authorities on the basis of authentic records.
Point No. 7: Scope of judicial review and
sustainability of the direction issued by the learned Single
Judge
The scope of judicial review in matters of
compassionate appointment is well settled. Such appointment
is an exception to the constitutional norm of open and merit-
based recruitment under Articles 14 and 16, and it can be
made only under rules or executive instructions, not by
individual discretion. A candidate has no vested right to it. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bank of Baroda v. Baljit Singh,
(2023) 13 SCC 343 , has held that eligibility turns on the
scheme in force at the relevant time, and the candidate must
satisfy all of its conditions. The relevant paragraph of the said

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
29/35
judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:
12. It is necessary to reiterate that the appointment of
a candidate on compassionate basis does not create any
vested right and that it is only when a candidate is covered
under all clauses of the scheme applicable at the relevant
point of time that he/she could be considered for
compassionate appointment.
The Court therefore does not sit in appeal over the
employer’s decision, and it does not direct appointment in
disregard of the policy.
The Court’s enquiry is confined to whether the
decision-making process was fair and the policy correctly
understood and applied. Where the authorities have evaluated
the claim in accordance with the scheme and applied its
criteria even-handedly to all applicants, interference is
unwarranted absent palpable arbitrariness. Reliance in this
regard may be placed to Union of India v. Amrita Sinha,
(2021) 20 SCC 695, the relevant paragraph of which is
reproduced hereinbelow:
12. The High Court has affirmed the view of the
Tribunal by coming to the conclusion that the payment which
was being made to the respondent was ad hoc in nature and

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
30/35
was wrongly considered by the authorities while awarding
merit points. This line of reasoning of the High Court is
equally erroneous as that of the Tribunal. The payment of the
family pension was not an ad hoc amount, but, was evidently
in accordance with the applicable service rules. The
application of the respondent was initially rejected in 2011
and was, thereafter, again reconsidered in 2014. Absent a
case of palpable arbitrariness, we are of the view that there
was no reason for the High Court or the Tribunal to interfere
with the evaluation which was conducted by the authorities in
terms of the applicable guidelines. Moreover, we are clearly
of the view that the grant of compassionate appointment
would not be in accordance with the basic purpose and object
of such a scheme.
In the present case, the order dated 08.08.2017
rejected the claim of the husband on the ground of age-bar and
declined the request for change of nomination. For the reasons
already recorded, the refusal to consider the request for
substitution, without examining the eligibility of the son and
the continuing applicability of the scheme, cannot be
sustained in the facts of this case. At the same time, the
learned Single Judge has issued a direction to consider the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
31/35
candidature of the son within three months, without requiring
the authorities to examine the aspects of delay, survival of the
object of the scheme, eligibility criteria, and the plea of parity
on the basis of authentic records.
A direction for bare consideration, without indicating
the parameters that must guide such consideration, is
incomplete and may lead to further litigation. The proper
course is to quash the order dated 08.08.2017 to the extent it
rejects the request for change of nomination on a purely
technical ground, and to remit the matter to the competent
authority for fresh consideration of the claim of the son in
accordance with the governing policy, the principles discussed
above, and the observations made in this judgment.
Point No. 8: Conclusions and relief
In view of the analysis on the foregoing points, this
Court records the following conclusions:
(i) The impugned judgment dated 20.04.2024 is
unsustainable to the extent it places primary reliance on the
decision in Sumitra Devi (supra), which had already been set
aside by a Division Bench of this Court.
(ii) The claim of the writ petitioner is governed by the
original policy decision of the Railways that led to the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
32/35
identification of the 44 families, read consistently with the
subsequent authoritative pronouncements regulating
preferential appointments.
(iii) The earlier directions of this Court kept the claim
alive for consideration in accordance with eligibility and law;
they did not create an indefeasible right to appointment.
(iv) The refusal to examine the request for change of
nomination, in the facts of the present case, was unduly rigid
and cannot be sustained on the grounds assigned.
(v) Delay is a relevant and weighty factor that must be
examined, but cannot be the sole ground for rejection without
consideration of other relevant aspects.
(vi) The plea of hostile discrimination requires
verification of primary facts by the authorities.
(vii) The matter requires fresh consideration by the
competent authority in accordance with law and the
observations made herein.
VII. Operative Order
In view of the findings recorded above, the appeal is
disposed of with the following directions:
1. The judgment and order dated 20.04.2024 passed by
the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 16222 of 2017 is set

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
33/35
aside to the extent it places reliance on the decision in Sumitra
Devi (supra) and issues a bare direction for consideration of
the candidature of the writ petitioner’s son without laying
down the parameters of such consideration.
2. The order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the General
Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway, is quashed only to
the extent it declines the request for change of nomination and
closes the claim without examining the eligibility of the son
and the other relevant aspects discussed in this judgment. The
finding that the original nominee (husband) was age-barred is
left undisturbed.
3. The matter is remitted to the competent authority of
the East Central Railway for fresh consideration of the claim
for appointment of the writ petitioner’s son, Chandan Kumar,
strictly in accordance with the governing policy framework,
the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 465 of
2022, and the observations made in this judgment.
4. In such fresh consideration, the competent authority
shall specifically examine and record findings on the
following aspects:
(a) whether the son fulfils the prescribed eligibility

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
34/35
criteria relating to age (including any applicable relaxation),
educational qualifications, medical fitness and suitability;
(b) whether the family continues to satisfy the basic
conditions of the scheme, including the nature and extent of
hardship caused by the acquisition;
(c) the effect of the long lapse of time from the date of
acquisition and whether the object of the preferential
appointment scheme still survives in the facts of the case;
(d) the plea of parity/hostile discrimination with
reference to the authentic records of the other families
included in the list of 44 persons, particularly the case of
Manju Devi; and
(e) any other condition prescribed by the applicable
Railway Board circulars and policy guidelines.
5. The writ petitioner shall be given a reasonable
opportunity to place all relevant documents and submissions
before the competent authority. The authority shall pass a
speaking order within a period of four months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed
any opinion on the ultimate entitlement of the son to
appointment. The competent authority shall decide the claim

Patna High Court L.P.A No.975 of 2024 dt.28-10-2026
35/35
on its own merits and in accordance with law.
7. There shall be no order as to costs.
8. We place on record our sincere appreciation for the
valuable assistance rendered by our Judicial Clerks, Shri
Aditya Shekhar, and Shri Ribhava Raj, in the preparation of
this judgment.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
Rana Vikram Singh, J : I agree.
(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
uttam/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 08.10.2026
Uploading Date 28.10.2026
Transmission Date N/A