Policy withdrawing employment assistance for land losers cannot be applied retrospectively to prior land acquisitions.

The applicant’s mother’s land (0.570 hectare in District Chhatarpur) was acquired by the Railways for the Lalitpur-Singrouli Railway Line project

The Section 4 notification was issued on 16.12.2010, and the final award was passed on 23.12.2011

Relying on the Railway policy dated 16.07.2010, which provided for employment assistance to land losers, the applicant applied for appointment on 03.12.2021

The respondents contested the application, arguing that the 2010 policy was replaced by a new policy on 11.11.2019 (RBE No. 193/2019), which discontinued such appointments

They further contended that the applicant failed to submit No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from eleven co-owners of the acquired joint land as required by Clause 5(vi) of the notification dated 14.10.2016

1. Whether the Railway Board’s policy instructions dated 11.11.2019, which discontinued appointments for land losers, apply retrospectively to land acquisitions concluded prior to its issuance

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to consideration for appointment subject to the fulfillment of procedural requirements regarding joint land ownership

The court primarily applied the principle of non-retroactivity of administrative policy, specifically regarding the Railway Board’s letter dated 11.11.2019 (RBE No. 193/2019)

It also adhered to the procedural requirements stipulated in Clause 5(vi) of the notification dated 14.10.2016, which necessitates a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from all co-owners in cases where the acquired land is held in joint names

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' contention that the 2019 policy barred the applicant’s claim. It noted that the land acquisition process was completed in 2013 (per the judgment’s reference to the acquisition year), and the Tribunal had established in previous cases that the policy dated 11.11.2019 does not operate retrospectively

Therefore, the applicant remained eligible under the earlier rehabilitation policy. However, the Tribunal observed that the applicant had not yet satisfied the mandatory condition of submitting NOCs from the numerous co-owners listed by the respondents (including Ramkripal, Ramsahay, and others)

Because the respondents had not yet issued a formal rejection and the matter was still under "active consideration," the Tribunal found it premature to grant an immediate appointment but necessary to direct the completion of the application process

It held that the 2019 policy cannot be applied retrospectively to deny the applicant's claim

The applicant was directed to fulfill the conditions of Clause 5(vi) of the 14.10.2016 notification by submitting the requisite NOCs from all co-owners as expeditiously as possible

Upon receipt of these documents, the respondents were directed to consider and decide the applicant's case for appointment within 90 days