Mandating time-bound consideration of pending applications for compassionate appointment under the land loser category.

The first applicant’s land was acquired by the Railway Authorities for the Deshpran-Nandigram Special Railway Project

Under the prevailing policy for grant of compassionate appointment to land losers, the second applicant (son of the land loser) applied for employment in the prescribed format

The applicants alleged that while the appointment process had remained dormant for a period, the respondents recently re-initiated the process for similarly placed candidates

Despite a pending representation dated March 11, 2025, no decision was communicated by the authorities

The applicants approached the Tribunal seeking a direction for appointment based on parity with others and in light of previous judicial pronouncements by the Tribunal and the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court

Whether the respondents are obligated to consider the applicants’ pending representation for appointment under the Land Loser Category in accordance with the Railway Board’s policy and judicial precedents.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding the filing of original applications

Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, regarding joint prosecution

Railway Board Circular RBE/99/2010 and the Railway Board’s Office Memorandum dated July 16, 2010, which govern the policy for appointment of land losers

Legal principles established by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in WPCT No. 74 of 2016, WPCT No. 75 of 2020, and WPCT No. 28 of 2021 concerning compassionate appointments for land losers

The Tribunal noted that the applicants limited their request to a time-bound consideration of their pending representation dated March 11, 2025

Without delving into the merits of the claim at the admission stage, the Tribunal found it appropriate to direct the respondents to exercise their administrative discretion

The court reasoned that since the applicants claimed parity with screened candidates of the same project and cited specific Railway Board policies and High Court judgments, the competent authority must evaluate the representation through the lens of those established guidelines and legal precedents

The court directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider the pending representation dated March 11, 2025, on compassionate grounds in lieu of the land acquired

This consideration must be done in light of the Railway Board’s OM dated July 16, 2010, and relevant judicial directions, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the order

No order as to costs was made