Railway employment assistance is denied where the acquired land area is insufficient to constitute a source of livelihood.

The applicant’s land, measuring 0.004 hectares in Village Madwa, Rewa, was acquired by the Railways for the Lalitpur-Singrauli new rail line project, with a certificate issued on 20.12.2018.

Under the then-prevailing Railway policy dated 16.07.2010, land losers were eligible for employment assistance.

The applicant applied for a position on 21.12.2018 and underwent screening; however, no appointment was made.

On 06.01.2025, the respondents rejected the applicant's claim, citing RBE No. 193/2019 (dated 11.11.2019), which withdrew the 2010 policy and stated that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) does not provide for mandatory employment.

1. Whether the withdrawal of the employment policy via RBE No. 193/2019 applies to land acquisitions completed prior to the issuance of the circular.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to employment assistance despite the small size of the acquired land (0.004 hectare).

The court considered the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which emphasizes compensation over mandatory employment.

Railway Board Circular RBE No. 193/2019, which superseded previous policies offering jobs to land losers.

The Tribunal relied on its own precedents in O.A. 200/275/2021 and O.A. 200/843/2021, which established that the 2019 policy is prospective and land acquired before 11.11.2019 should ideally be governed by the earlier policy.

The Tribunal applied the principle from the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Misc. Petition No. 6992 of 2025, which held that no writ for employment can be issued if the size of the acquired land is so negligible that it does not affect the source of livelihood of the displaced family.

The Tribunal initially observed that because the applicant’s land was acquired in 2018—prior to the 2019 circular—the case would normally be governed by the 2010 policy, as RBE No. 193/2019 is explicitly prospective.

The Tribunal then assessed the material facts regarding the extent of the loss and found that the acquired area was extremely small, totaling only 0.004 hectare.

Applying the ratio from the Madhya Pradesh High Court's recent decision (MP-6992-2025), the Tribunal reasoned that such a minimal portion of land cannot be considered the primary source of livelihood for an entire family.

The loss of this land did not trigger the "rehabilitation" necessity intended by the employment assistance policy.

The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application.

No order as to costs was made.