Railway authorities must consider pending representations for land loser category employment in light of established judicial precedents.

The applicants are a mother (Applicant No. 1) and daughter (Applicant No. 2). Land belonging to Applicant No. 1 was acquired by South Eastern Railway for the Bowaichandi-Arambagh New B.G. Railway Line Project

Pursuant to Railway Board Circular RBE 99 of 2010, the applicants applied for compassionate appointment for Applicant No. 2 under the "land loser" category

Despite submitting representations on 19.07.2024 and 20.02.2025, the respondents failed to grant the appointment or respond to the requests

The applicants subsequently filed the present Original Application (O.A.) seeking a direction for appointment and a Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) for joint prosecution

1. Whether the applicants should be permitted to pursue the legal remedy jointly under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987

2. Whether the respondent authorities are obligated to consider and decide upon the pending representations regarding appointment under the land loser category in light of established judicial precedents

The court applied Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, regarding joint applications

Railway Board Circular RBE No. 99/2010 dated 16.07.2010, which governs appointments for land losers

legal standards set by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in Union of India & Ors. v. Jahangir Chowdhury & Ors. (WPCT 28 of 2021) and Union of India & Ors. v. Chandi Das Khan & Ors. (WPCT 75 of 2020), alongside its own previous order in OA/350/319/2021

The Tribunal first addressed the procedural requirement for joint prosecution, satisfying itself that the applicants shared a common grievance regarding the denial of appointment based on the same land loser certificate

the Tribunal noted that the applicants’ representations remained unaddressed by the Railway authorities

Rather than adjudicating on the ultimate eligibility of the applicants at this stage, the Tribunal determined that the appropriate remedy was to compel the Respondents to exercise their administrative duty

By directing the Respondents to treat the O.A. as part of the representation and apply the principles laid down by the High Court at Calcutta in similar land loser cases, the Tribunal ensured that the administrative decision-making process is aligned with prevailing judicial oversight

The Respondents/Competent Authority were directed to consider the applicants' representation dated 19.07.2024 (treating the O.A. as a supplementary part) and pass a reasoned, speaking order within four months of receiving the certified order, specifically in light of the High Court judgments in Jahangir Chowdhury and Chandi Das Khan

The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. at the admission stage without expressing an opinion on the merits. No costs were awarded.