Railway land-loser employment policy does not apply to DFCCIL and creates no enforceable right to appointment.

The applicants were members of a land-loser family whose agricultural land was acquired for the Dedicated Freight Corridor Project implemented through the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. (“DFCCIL”).

Applicant No. 1 sought compensatory employment for his son, Applicant No. 2, relying principally on Railway Board Circular RBE No. 99/2010 dated 16.07.2010, which contemplated appointment of one eligible member of an affected land-loser family.

Representations seeking compensation and employment were submitted on 24.12.2014 and 09.03.2015.

The respondents contended that DFCCIL was a separate Government company, not notified under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and that the 2010 policy applied only to Railway Administrations and Production Units, not Railway public sector undertakings such as DFCCIL, pursuant to clarifications dated 05.03.2014 and 08.10.2015.

The applicants alleged violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 and invoked promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation.

1. Whether the Original Application was maintainable before the Central Administrative Tribunal, particularly against DFCCIL, which had not been notified under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

2. Whether Railway Board Circular RBE No. 99/2010 dated 16.07.2010 applied to land acquired for projects executed through DFCCIL.

3. Whether the applicants had acquired a vested or enforceable right to compensatory employment.

4. Whether promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation created an enforceable right to such employment.

5. Whether denial of compensatory employment violated Articles 14, 16 or 21 of the Constitution.

The Tribunal applied Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, holding that CAT jurisdiction over an entity depends upon the statutory scheme and requisite notification; administrative control over a Government company does not, by itself, confer jurisdiction.

It applied Railway Board Circular RBE No. 99/2010 dated 16.07.2010 together with the subsequent clarifications dated 05.03.2014 and 08.10.2015, which limited the land-loser appointment policy to Railway Administrations and Production Units and excluded Railway PSUs, including DFCCIL.

The Tribunal further applied the principle that executive policy or administrative instructions do not ordinarily create an indefeasible right to public employment unless supported by statute or applicable recruitment rules; land-loser or compassionate appointment is an exception created by policy and is not an independent source of recruitment.

Promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation cannot compel the State to act contrary to its applicable policy or create a recruitment right not recognised by law.

A claim of discrimination under Article 14 requires proof that similarly situated persons, governed by the same authority and policy, were treated differently without rational basis.

The Tribunal relied upon Rajesh Kumar Tiwari v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Raj 1841, and consistent CAT decisions including A.K. Mishra, Chintamani Aadiwasi, Uday Pratap Singh and Raj Kumar.

The Tribunal held that DFCCIL retained a distinct corporate identity despite being under the administrative control of the Ministry of Railways; since it had not been notified under Section 14, disputes pertaining to DFCCIL were not within CAT’s jurisdiction.

The Delhi High Court’s order permitting the applicants to pursue an appropriate remedy did not itself confer jurisdiction.

Even assuming maintainability, the applicants’ claim failed on merits.

The Railway Board’s later clarifications, issued by the policy-making authority, expressly excluded DFCCIL from the 2010 employment scheme and had not been shown to contravene any statute.

Further, the applicants’ representations were made after the 05.03.2014 clarification, weakening their assertion that a vested right had already crystallised.

No clear and unequivocal promise guaranteeing appointment was established, and legitimate expectation could not override the clarified policy.

The allegations of differential implementation and constitutional violations were unsupported by evidence of similarly situated land-losers under the same project and policy receiving employment.

In the alternative, it held that RBE No. 99/2010 did not apply to DFCCIL projects and that the applicants possessed no statutory, contractual, constitutional or enforceable policy right to compensatory employment.

Promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were also rejected, and no violation of Articles 14, 16 or 21 was established.

The O.A. was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.