Daughter-in-law of deceased nominee entitled to rehabilitation appointment as Class-I heir to ancestral property.

The Railways acquired land (Khasra No. 296/2) for the Chhindwara-Nainpur-Mandla project. The land was originally ancestral property recorded in the name of Respondent No. 5 (Ramesh Kumar Jain), the applicant’s father-in-law.

Respondent No. 5 nominated his son, Arihant Kumar Jain (applicant's husband), for employment assistance in lieu of the land acquisition under Railway policy.

Arihant completed all formalities except the medical examination but died due to COVID-19 on 24.04.2021.

Following his death, the Revenue records were updated to name the applicant as the owner of part of the acquired land.

The Railways rejected the applicant's claim for appointment via order dated 16.03.2022, citing Estt. Rule No. 183/2010, which limits eligibility to the sole owner or their immediate family (son/daughter/spouse), and instead processed the claim of Respondent No. 6 (the deceased's sister).

1. Whether a daughter-in-law, as a Class-I heir of a deceased son who was nominated for rehabilitation-based employment, is eligible for appointment when the land is ancestral property.

2. Whether the nomination of a married daughter (Respondent No. 6) takes precedence over the widow of the originally nominated candidate in ancestral property disputes.

The court primarily applied the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, specifically regarding the rights of Class-I heirs to ancestral property, establishing that a widow (who has not remarried) is entitled to her husband's share.

The court also interpreted Railway Estt. Rule No. 183/2010, which provides for employment assistance to "land losers" or their immediate relatives (sole owner, son, daughter, husband, or wife).

The Tribunal found that while the land was recorded in the father-in-law's name (Respondent No. 5) at the time of acquisition, it was ancestral property, not self-acquired.

Because the Railways had already initiated the appointment process for the applicant's husband (the son) prior to his death, his right to employment assistance was recognized.

Under the Hindu Succession Act, the applicant, as a Class-I heir, inherited her deceased husband's interest in the ancestral property, a fact corroborated by the 2022 Revenue Department records naming her as an owner.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant’s status as a widow and owner of the remaining/acquired land made her the rightful claimant over Respondent No. 6 (the married daughter), who was not a dependent of the land loser.

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application, quashing the impugned order dated 16.03.2022. The official respondents were directed to reconsider and decide the applicant's claim for employment assistance and pass necessary orders within 90 days of receipt of the judgment.