Policy changes affecting land-loser appointments cannot apply retrospectively to pending cases.

The applicants' land was acquired by the Railway department between 2001, 2008, and 2011 for the construction of the USBRL (Udhampur, Srinagar, Baramulla Railway line), leading to the loss of over 75% of their landholdings, an admitted fact by the respondents.

Applications for Group 'D' posts based on the land loser category were forwarded to the railway authorities by relevant state authorities between 2013 and 2019.

Applicant No.1 underwent a screening test on August 25, 2015, and had papers scrutinized on September 14, 2019.

Applicant No.6 also had a screening test on August 28, 2015, but it revealed discrepancies in his name on land records, which were later clarified by state authorities.

Before the issuance of a new policy, the General Manager (Personnel) Northern Railway, New Delhi, had instructed the division to screen land loser wards for Group 'D' appointments in 2007.

On November 11, 2019, the Ministry of Railways issued RBE No. 193/2019, which superseded the earlier policy of offering appointments to affected land losers and instead provided for a lump sum payment of Rs. 5 Lakh to affected families, explicitly stating it would be effective from the date of issue (November 11, 2019).

The cases of the applicants were received by the division after November 11, 2019, for screening, but their screening was not conducted because the scheme was withdrawn, and clarification was sought from the HQ office regarding the applicability of the new instructions.

The respondents argued that the application was time-barred under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 and that the earlier policy of appointment for land losers was illegal and ultra vires, citing judgments from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh and the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the impugned letter dated 11.11.2019, withdrawing the policy for appointing land losers in Group 'D' posts, can be applied retrospectively to the applicants whose land was acquired and whose applications were initiated before its issuance?

2. Whether the respondents are obligated to consider the applicants' claims for appointment under the policy existing at the time their land was acquired and their applications were forwarded?

The court considered the general principle that executive orders and circulars cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect, particularly when they divest accrued rights.

It also referred to the Railway Board’s policy for appointing eligible land losers in Group ‘D’ categories, as outlined in circulars like RBE 99 of 2010 and the letter dated January 3, 2007, which granted employment rights to land losers.

The judgment also took cognizance of the stipulated prospective effect of RBE No.193/2019, which stated its effectiveness from November 11, 2019, onwards.

The Tribunal found that the applicants' land was acquired between 2001 and 2011, and their applications for appointment as land losers were formally recommended by state authorities to the railway department between 2013 and 2019, all occurring prior to the issuance of the new policy, RBE No.193/2019.

The respondents themselves admitted that the General Manager (Personnel) Northern Railway had issued directions in 2007 to screen wards of land losers for appointment.

The new policy, RBE No.193/2019, explicitly stated that it would be effective from November 11, 2019, onwards, thereby having only a prospective effect.

Despite some applicants undergoing screening or having their cases processed, the respondents stalled further action post-2019, awaiting clarification on the new policy's applicability.

The Tribunal emphasized that an executive order or circular cannot be retrospectively applied, especially when it negates rights that had already ripened or were in the process of being determined under previous policies.

The court noted that the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar v. Union of India also upheld the enforceability of existing policies.

Therefore, since the state authorities had recommended the applicants' cases well before the new policy, their claims should be processed under the rules in force at the time of land acquisition and recommendation.

Consequently, OA No.886/2023 was allowed.

The respondents were directed to consider and decide the applicants' cases within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order, strictly in accordance with the circulars, policies, and rules that were in force both when the land was acquired and when the recommendations for appointment were forwarded.

There was no order as to costs.