Railways must decide land loser appointment claims through reasoned orders per established judicial precedents.

The applicants’ land was acquired by the South Eastern Railway for the construction of the Bowaichandi – Arambagh New B.G. Railway Line.

Applicant No. 2 was issued a land loser certificate, following which the applicants applied for compassionate appointment under the "land loser category" pursuant to Railway Board Circular RBE 99 of 2010.

Despite a formal application and a subsequent representation dated 11.12.2025, the respondents did not communicate a decision.

The applicants approached the Tribunal seeking a direction for appointment or, alternatively, a direction for the respondents to decide their pending representation.

Whether the respondents are obligated to consider and dispose of the applicants' pending representation for appointment under the land loser category in accordance with prevailing law and precedents.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Procedurally, it applied Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, to permit joint prosecution by the applicants.

Substantively, the claim was based on Railway Board Circular RBE 99 of 2010 (dated 16.07.2010) regarding land loser appointments.

The court further relied on the legal principles established by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in Union of India & Ors. v. Jahangir Chowdhury & Ors. (WPCT 28 of 2021) and Union of India & Ors. v. Chandi Das Khan & Ors. (WPCT 75 of 2020).

The Tribunal noted that the applicants limited their request to an "innocuous prayer" seeking a time-bound disposal of their pending representation dated 11.12.2025.

The respondents expressed no objection to this limited prayer, provided the consideration followed the relevant rules.

The Tribunal declined to adjudicate on the merits of the applicants' eligibility for appointment, emphasizing instead the administrative duty of the competent authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order.

By directing the respondents to treat the Original Application (OA) as part of the representation, the Tribunal ensured that the applicants’ grievances and the cited precedents (High Court judgments and previous CAT orders) would be formally reviewed by the Railway authorities.

The respondents were ordered to consider the representation dated 11.12.2025, in light of the High Court judgments in WPCT 28 of 2021 and WPCT 75 of 2020, and the Tribunal’s order in OA/350/319/2021.

The decision must be communicated via a reasoned and speaking order within four months of receiving the certified copy of the judgment.

The Tribunal disposed of the Original Application with a direction to the respondents/competent authority. No costs were awarded.