Authorities must decide land-loser appointment claims by a reasoned order without prejudging their merits.

The applicants stated that their land was acquired for the Deshpran–Nandigram Special Railway Project and that a land-loser certificate was issued in favour of Applicant No. 1.

They claimed to have applied through the proper channel for appointment under the land-loser category pursuant to Railway Board Circular RBE No. 99/2010, but no appointment was granted.

Applicant No. 1 subsequently submitted a representation dated 17 December 2025 seeking appointment for Applicant No. 2, which remained undecided.

The respondents did not appear.

The Tribunal allowed the application for joint prosecution under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicants’ pending representation seeking appointment under the land-loser category in light of the cited decisions.

2. Whether the Tribunal should determine the applicants’ entitlement to appointment at this stage.

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which enables an aggrieved person to seek relief before the Tribunal in service matters.

Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 was applied to permit joint prosecution of the applicants’ claims.

The applicants relied on Railway Board Circular RBE No. 99/2010 and on Union of India v. Jahangir Chowdhury (WPCT No. 28 of 2021), Union of India v. Chandi Das Khan (WPCT No. 75 of 2020), and the Tribunal’s order in O.A. No. 350/319/2021; the Tribunal directed the authority to consider the representation in light of those decisions, without stating or deciding their substantive effect in this case.

The Tribunal accepted the applicants’ limited request for consideration of their still-pending representation. It directed the competent authority to assess that representation against the specified High Court and Tribunal decisions and to issue a reasoned, speaking order.

Because the request was confined to consideration of the representation, the Tribunal expressly refrained from deciding whether Applicant No. 2 was substantively entitled to appointment and left all merits open for the respondents’ consideration.

It made no finding on the merits of the appointment claim, disposed of both the O.A. and M.A., and made no order as to costs.