UNION OF INDIA vs SAVITRI BAI

1

CGHC010237322026 2026:CGHC:45609-DB
NAFR
BABLU
RAJENDRA
BHANARKAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
BABLU RAJENDRA
BHANARKAR
Date: 2026.10.29
10:45:16 +0530
WPS No. 5310 of 2026
1 - Union Of India Through The General Manager, South East Central
Railway, SECR Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 495004
2 - Chief Administrative Officer (Construction) Personnel Branch, South
East Central Railway, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004
... Petitioners
versus
1 - Savitri Bai W/o Shri Nilkanth Kashyap Aged About 39 Years Village -
Tendue, Post - Semra, Tehsil - Navagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, C.G.
495668
2 - Sanat Kumar Kashyap S/o Shri Nilkanth Aged About 19 Years
Village - Tendua, Post- Semra, Tehsil - Navagarh, District - Janjgir-
Champa, C.G. 495668
3 - Collector District- Janjgir Champa, Janjgir Chhattisgarh, 495668
4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) & Land Acquisition Officer
Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh, 49567
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr.Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor
General with Ms.Anmol Sharma, Central
Government Counsel
For Respondents
: Mr. Govind Ram Miri, Senior Advocate
No.1 and 2/State
assisted by Mr.Yogesh Chandra Sharma and
Mr.Sameer Sharma, Advocates

2
Hon'ble Shri Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Santosh Sharma, Judge
Order on Board
Per Krushna Ram Mohapatra , Chief Justice
28.10.2026
1. Heard Mr.Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General with
Ms.Anmol Sharma, learned Central Government Counsel for the
petitioners/Union of India as well as Mr. Govind Ram Miri, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Yogesh Chandra Sharma and
Mr.Sameer Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents
No.1 and 2.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners/Union of India
assailing the order dated 31.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (for
brevity “the Tribunal”) in O.A.No.544/2020.
3. Mr.Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for the
petitioners/Union of India submits that respondents No.1 and 2
herein were applicants before the Tribunal claiming rehabilitation
employment for acquisition of their land for a Railway project. It is
submitted that their claim for rehabilitation employment was
rejected in terms of the Railway Board decision dated 2.9.2011,
which does not permit employment to a grandson (respondent
No.2) and also bars repeated claims in respect of the same land.
He further submits that Khasra No.487/5, admeasuring 0.004

3
hectare, situated in village Kosmanda, P.H. No.3, Champa
Bypass, which was recorded in the name of one Mahesh Ram S/o
Shri Bisahu Kurmi, was acquired by the Railway Administration.
Respondent No.1 is the daughter of said Mahesh Ram and
respondent No.2 is a son of respondent No.1. Rehabilitation
employment of respondent No.2 was claimed for acquisition of the
aforesaid land of said Mahesh Ram. The claim of respondent
No.2 was rejected in terms of the policy decision dated 2.9.2011,
which did not permit employment to a grandson. Learned Tribunal
without appreciating the same and only relying upon the ratio in
the case of South East Central Railway Through General
Manager, SECR and another v. Yashvant and others (WPS
No.1349/2018, decided by this Court on 03.04.2018 ) allowed
the original application holding that the case of respondent No.2
should be reconsidered by the appellants in terms of the order
passed in the case of Yashvant (supra) and to issue necessary
orders in this regard, within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of the impugned order.
4. Mr. Mishra further submits that the ratio in the case of Yashvant
(supra) is not applicable to the instant case. The policy decision
dated 2.9.2011 is very specific and it does not include a grandson
to get an employment under the said policy. In fact, the land of
Mahesh Ram, grandfather of respondent No.2, was acquired and
respondent No.1 had claimed, but her claim was rejected as she
was age barred. Presently, respondent No.2 claims for

4
rehabilitation employment. Respondent No.2 is entitled to the
monetary compensation in terms of the policy decision dated
2.9.2011. This aspect was not taken into consideration by the
Tribunal. Hence, the impugned order under Annexure P-1 is not
sustainable.
5. Mr.Govind Ram Miri, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the case of respondents
No.1 and 2, more particularly respondent No.2, is squarely
covered by the ratio in Yashvant’s case (supra). He also placed
on record the decision passed by the coordinate Bench of this
Court in WPS No.6619/2022 (Union of India through the
General Manager and another v. Ku.Pramila Yadav and
others, decided on 21.07.2023) , wherein relying upon the ratio in
Yashvant’s case (supra), the coordinate Bench has confirmed the
order of the Tribunal. The Union of India being not satisfied moved
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed affirming the
order of this Court. Subsequently, the Union of India also filed the
review petition, which was also dismissed on 06.10.2026. It is his
submission that the family includes the grandson and when no
one from the family has been provided with rehabilitation
employment, respondent No. 2, being the grandson of the land
loser, namely, Mahesh Ram, is entitled for rehabilitation
employment under the South East Central Railway.
6. Taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the

5
parties, this Court feels it appropriate to reproduce the relevant
portion of Yashvant’s case (supra), which is as under:-
“9. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Yashwant
(supra) has held in paragraphs 2 and 3 as under :-
“2. It is not in dispute that an item of land which was
acquired by the Railways belonged to the grandfather of
st
1 Respondent. That person was more than 72 years of
age and his son was around 58 years of age. That
family, therefore, projected the 1st Respondent, who is
the grandson in the line, as the one who may be
appointed in consonance with the ameliorative provision
for appointment of land losers affected by the land
acquisition for Railway projects. The dispute before the
Tribunal was as to whether a person who is, admittedly,
the grandson of the owner of the land could be
appointed at least in a situation where the original owner
of land and even his son had become age barred for
appointment. The Applicant before the Tribunal who is
the 1st Respondent before us, we found to have
established before the Tribunal that the Railways had
given appointment to two other similarly situated
persons, who were, acutally, a grandchildren of the
respective land losers. The Tribunal ultimately handed
down the verdict in favour of the 1st Respondent,
thereby requiring the Railways to consider their proposal
st
to refuse appointment of the 1 Respondent.
3. It is not in dispute that no member of the family of the
person from whom the land was acquired was
appointed as among the land losers. The Railways also
do not dispute the fact that the 1st Respondent is the
grandson of the primary owner of the land, which was
acquired. Revised instructions dated 16.07.2010 issued
by the Railway Board says that the Applicant shall be a

6
person whose land or a portion thereof has been
acquired for the project. It is the provision therein that in
case of sole owner of land, the applicant shall be the
sole owner or son/daughter/husband/wife of the land.
The said clause further elaborates to say that if the land
is owned by more than one person, it would be for the
competent authority to decide as to who shall be
considered as applicant. This clause itself shows that
there is a fair amount of discretion available to the
Railway Authorities in the matter. The ultimate
requirement is that there should not be any
appointment, of more than one person referable to one
owner of an item of land which is acquired by the
Railways. A purposive approach in understanding the
Railway Board's Notification would definitely lead to the
conclusion that in cases where situation of the nature in
hand occur, it will be within the authority of the Railways
to make the appropriate choice; even down in the
probable line of succession; particularly when all the
three persons are still alive and are shown to have been
carrying out agricultural operations over land that they
lost as a result of requisition by the Railways.”
7. On a close reading of the ratio in the case of Yashvant (supra), it
is clear that a grandson is also entitled for rehabilitation
employment for acquisition of the land of the land loser,
particularly when no other person in the family has been provided
with rehabilitation employment for acquisition of the said land. The
Tribunal has taken the pain of discussing the facts of the case and
the applicability of the ratio in the case of Yashvant (supra) and
has arrived at the conclusion that the ratio in the case of
Yashvant (supra) is squarely applicable to the instant case. We

7
find that the case in Yashvant (supra) is almost identical to the
present one in material particulars. Hence, we find no reason to
take a different view than that of the case of Yashvant (supra).
Thus, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order, as
on perusal of the same as well as the judgment in the case of
Yashvant (supra), we find that the ratio therein is squarely
applicable to the case of respondent No. 2.
8. In that view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the
impugned order under Annexure P-1. Hence, the writ petition is
dismissed with an observation that the order passed by the
Tribunal shall be implemented expeditiously within the stipulated
time as provided by the Tribunal in the impugned order.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Santosh Sharma) (Krushna Ram Mohapatra)
Judge Chief Justice
Bablu