Railway employment benefits for land losers are inapplicable to acquisitions concluded prior to the scheme’s notification.

The five applicants are land losers whose property was acquired by the North Frontier Railway for the Mainaguri to Jogighopa New B.G. Line Railway Project.

The land acquisition process commenced in 2003–2004 and was completed by 2008, with the applicants receiving compensation at that time.

Although the project was completed around 2013–2014, the Railway Board issued Circular RBE No. 99/2010 on 16.07.2010, providing a scheme for compassionate appointment for land losers.

Following a previous direction from the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1756/2017, the respondents issued a speaking order on 25.11.2020 rejecting the applicants' claims on the grounds that their land acquisition concluded prior to the issuance of the 2010 Circular.

1. Whether the applicants are eligible for compassionate appointment under RBE No. 99/2010 given that the land acquisition and possession were completed prior to the circular’s issuance

2. Whether the judicial precedents and prior Tribunal orders cited by the applicants regarding similar projects are applicable to the present facts

The court primarily applied the provisions of Railway Board Circular RBE No. 99/2010 dated 16.07.2010.

Condition No. 08 of the said circular, which stipulates that the instructions for granting employment to land losers do not apply to cases where the land acquisition process has already been concluded by the Railways taking possession of the land.

The court also exercised its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal observed that it was an undisputed fact that the land acquisition and the taking of possession were completed in 2003–2004, whereas RBE No. 99/2010 was issued only on 16.07.2010.

The Tribunal reasoned that the explicit exclusionary language in Clause 8 of the Circular prevents its retrospective application to acquisitions concluded before its inception.

Regarding the applicants' reliance on Lakshman Chandra Bhandary & Ors. v. Sunit Sharma & Ors. (WPCT No. 74 of 2016) and O.A. No. 1565/2023, the Tribunal distinguished these cases, noting they pertained to different railway projects and, crucially, that the applicability of Clause 8 of RBE No. 99/2010 was neither an issue nor considered in those proceedings.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the respondents’ speaking order dated 25.11.2020 to be legally sound and based on cogent reasoning.

The court found no legal infirmity in the impugned order dated 25.11.2020 and dismissed the Original Application (O.A.) as being devoid of merit.

No order as to costs was made.