Land-loser appointment schemes exclude grandsons as eligibility is strictly confined to policy-prescribed immediate family.

In 2002–03, the State Government acquired 242 decimals of land belonging to Applicant No. 1 for a Rail-cum-Road Bridge project undertaken by the East Central Railway

Applicant No. 1 received partial compensation but sought employment for his grandson (Applicant No. 2) under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme for land losers

Applicant No. 2’s father (son of Applicant No. 1) died in 2004

Although the land was acquired in 2002–03 and an award was passed in 2005, the applicants first submitted an application for employment only on January 20, 2015

The applicants contended that the land was ancestral property, making Applicant No. 2 a coparcener and thus a "displaced person" entitled to benefits under Railway Board Notification RBE No. 99/2010

The respondents contested the claim on grounds of ineligibility and an inordinate delay of 12 years

1. Whether a grandson of a land loser is eligible for appointment under the Railway’s Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme

2. Whether a claim for appointment under the land loser scheme preferred after a lapse of 12 years is barred by limitation and laches

Ministry of Railways' policy guidelines dated 31.12.1982 and 01.01.1983, which stipulate that claims for employment must be made within two years of land acquisition or the first recruitment thereafter

policy modification of 1988, which deleted the term "ward" from eligibility criteria, restricting the concession of employment to the displaced person, their spouse, son, or daughter

Railway Board, via letter dated 11.11.2019, had subsequently withdrawn the provisions for appointment of land losers

principle that social welfare schemes must be interpreted within their policy framework rather than personal law principles like coparcenary rights

employment under the land loser scheme is a policy-based concession rather than a vested right, necessitating strict adherence to eligibility criteria

relevant policy expressly limits eligibility to the land loser, spouse, or children; because the category of "ward" was specifically deleted in 1988, a grandson (Applicant No. 2) falls outside the ambit of the scheme

The Tribunal rejected the argument that coparcenary interest in ancestral property under personal law creates an entitlement, stating that policy terms govern the scheme

the 12-year gap between the award (2005) and the application (2015) was fatal

the scheme’s objective is to provide immediate relief and rehabilitation; entertaining stale claims after a decade would defeat this purpose and open "floodgates" for similar time-barred litigation

applicants failed to establish any enforceable right, especially as the policy had since been withdrawn

The Original Application was dismissed, and all pending Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of without costs