Railway land-loser employment policies cannot be applied retrospectively to land acquisitions predating the policy change.

The applicant’s mother’s land (0.020 hectare) was acquired by the Railways for the Lalitpur-Singrouli Railway Line project.

Under the Railway policy dated 16.07.2010, land losers are entitled to employment assistance.

The applicant applied for appointment on 11.05.2017.

The respondents resisted the claim on three grounds: (i) the 2010 policy was replaced by RBE No. 193/2019, which discontinued such appointments; (ii) the applicant was a minor (16 years, 6 months) on the cut-off date of 01.01.2017, whereas the minimum age was 18; and (iii) the applicant failed to submit a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from co-owners of the acquired joint land.

1. Whether the Railway Board’s policy dated 11.11.2019 (RBE No. 193/2019) applies retrospectively to land acquisitions completed in 2016.

2. Whether the applicant's minority status at the time of the cut-off date is an absolute bar to appointment given the discretionary powers in the notification.

3. Whether an NOC from co-owners is required when the applicant has a defined separate share in the joint land.

The Tribunal applied the Railway policy instructions dated 16.07.2010 regarding rehabilitation assistance.

It relied on the legal principle of non-retroactivity, established in prior Tribunal decisions, holding that Railway Board letter dated 11.11.2019 (RBE No. 193/2019) cannot apply to prior acquisitions.

Furthermore, it applied the 14.10.2016 Notification, specifically Clause 5(x) regarding age limits, Clause 5(vi) regarding joint land NOCs, and Clause 5(xi), which grants the competent authority discretion to relax eligibility conditions in special circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the 2019 policy was inapplicable because the land acquisition occurred in 2016, and the new policy does not operate retrospectively.

Regarding the age restriction in Clause 5(x), the Tribunal noted that Clause 5(xi) of the same notification empowers the competent authority to relax age or education requirements in special cases; thus, the applicant's case deserved consideration under this discretionary provision.

On the issue of the NOC, the Tribunal observed that the SDO/Land Acquisition Officer's certificate identified the applicant as having a specific 1/20 share in the land. Consequently, the Tribunal reasoned that since the share was distinct, the requirement for an NOC from other co-owners under Clause 5(vi) was not applicable.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to place the applicant's case for employment assistance before the competent authority for a decision on its merits, including the potential relaxation of age criteria. The exercise must be completed within 90 days of receipt of the order.