Railway Land Loser’s Grandson Gets Rehabilitation-Job Claim Reconsidered Where No Family Member Was Appointed: Chhattisgarh HC

Land recorded in the name of Mahesh Ram was acquired for a Railway project. Respondent No. 1, his daughter, sought rehabilitation employment but was rejected as age-barred; respondent No. 2, her son and Mahesh Ram’s grandson, then claimed employment.

The Railway rejected his claim, relying on its policy dated 2 September 2011, which it said did not include a grandson and barred repeated claims concerning the same land.

The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the respondents’ application and directed reconsideration in light of South East Central Railway v. Yashvant.

The Union of India challenged that order, arguing that Yashvant did not apply and that respondent No. 2 was entitled only to monetary compensation.

The Court applied the principle in South East Central Railway through General Manager, SECR v. Yashvant (WPS No. 1349 of 2018, decided 3 April 2018), which interpreted the Railway Board’s revised instructions dated 16 July 2010. Those instructions identify the landowner or, in the case of a sole owner, the owner’s son, daughter, husband or wife as an applicant, while allowing the competent authority discretion where land has multiple owners.

Yashvant held that the instructions permit a purposive exercise of discretion to consider a grandson in the probable line of succession, particularly where the landowner and the owner’s son are age-barred, provided there is no more than one appointment in respect of the acquired land.

The Court also noted that a coordinate Bench had applied Yashvant in Union of India v. Ku. Pramila Yadav, and that the Supreme Court had dismissed the Union’s challenge and review petition.

The Court considered Yashvant materially similar: there, as here, the claimant was the landowner’s grandson, and no other family member had received rehabilitation employment for the acquired land.

It accepted that Yashvant permits the Railway authorities to exercise discretion to consider a grandson in such circumstances, notwithstanding the Railway’s reliance on the 2011 policy and its objection that the claim was repeated.

Finding the Tribunal’s application of Yashvant sound, the Court saw no basis to interfere with its direction for reconsideration.

It directed that the Tribunal’s order be implemented expeditiously within the time stipulated by the Tribunal.