Stale employment claims by land-oustees are unsustainable absent specific policy mandates or contractual acquisition terms.

The applicant’s father’s land was acquired by the Railways in 1979 (per respondents) or 1981 (per applicant) for the construction of a Diesel Shed at Gonda

The applicant alleged that the acquisition was made with an assurance of employment for a family member in addition to monetary compensation

The applicant’s elder brother, Anil Kumar Gupta, previously pursued litigation (Writ Petition No. 6941 of 2004 and Contempt Petition No. 1358 of 2013) regarding this claim. Following the brother's death on August 19, 2013, the applicant filed representations seeking appointment

The respondents rejected the claim via orders dated September 1, 2017, and September 15, 2017, stating there was no Railway Board provision for employment regarding land acquired in 1979 and no record of such an assurance

The applicant subsequently challenged these rejection orders

1. Whether the applicant has a legal right to seek appointment in the Railways based on land acquisition that occurred approximately 35 years prior to the application

2. Whether the Government of U.P. policy dated January 5, 1981, is applicable to land acquired in 1979

3. Whether the applicant provided sufficient evidence of a specific assurance of employment or evidence of parity with other similarly situated land oustees

The Tribunal considered the general policy for employment of displaced persons under the Government of U.P. Order dated January 5, 1981

It applied the principle of "stale claims," as previously observed by the Hon’ble High Court in the related contempt proceedings, noting that records are not expected to be maintained indefinitely for decades-old acquisitions

The Tribunal also relied on the principle that the burden of proof lies with the applicant to produce specific acquisition notifications or terms and conditions that stipulate employment as a condition of land transfer

The Tribunal found that the acquisition took place in 1979, which predates the 1981 policy of the Government of U.P. cited by the applicant

It noted that the High Court had already categorized the claim as "stale" in 2013 due to the significant lapse of time since 1979

The Tribunal observed that the applicant failed to produce the specific notification or document proving that employment was a term of the acquisition for the Diesel Shed at Gonda

Furthermore, the applicant’s claim of parity was rejected because he failed to provide specific instances of other family members of land oustees receiving employment for the same project, which the respondents categorically denied

Finally, the Tribunal highlighted that the applicant was not even born when the land was acquired in 1979, further weakening the nexus for a claim for employment decades later

The Original Application (OA) was dismissed as devoid of merit

All pending Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) were disposed of, and parties were ordered to bear their own costs