Subsequent policy instructions cannot retrospectively deny rehabilitation appointment benefits to land losers.

The applicant’s land (0.010 hectare) in District Panna was acquired by the Railways for the Lalitpur-Khajuraho-Panna-Satna New Broad-gauge Railway Line project

Under the then-prevailing Railway policy dated July 16, 2010, land losers were eligible for employment assistance.

The applicant applied for appointment on February 1, 2021

The respondents contested the claim, arguing that: (i) the policy was superseded by RBE No. 193/2019 dated November 11, 2019, which discontinued such appointments

(ii) the 2016 notification explicitly stated there was no guarantee of employment

(iii) the applicant’s residence differed from the land location

(iv) the applicant failed to meet the educational qualification of passing the 10th standard by the cut-off date of January 1, 2017

1. Whether the Railway Board’s policy dated November 11, 2019 (RBE No. 193/2019), which discontinued appointments for land losers, applies retrospectively to land acquired prior to its issuance

2. Whether the applicant’s failure to meet the educational cut-off date is absolute, given the discretionary relaxation powers vested in the competent authority

The Tribunal applied the principle of non-retrospective application of administrative policies, specifically regarding Railway Board Letter RBE No. 193/2019

It further relied on the Railway Board Policy dated July 16, 2010, which governed rehabilitation appointments at the time of land acquisition

Additionally, the court interpreted Clause (xi) of the recruitment notification dated October 14, 2016, which empowers the competent authority to relax eligibility criteria, including age and education, in special cases

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' primary contention regarding the 2019 policy change, noting that it had consistently held in previous cases that RBE No. 193/2019 cannot be applied retrospectively to land acquisitions concluded before its issuance

Since the applicant’s land was acquired under the old regime, she remained eligible for consideration.

Regarding the educational qualification, the Tribunal observed that while the applicant passed the 10th standard after the January 1, 2017 cut-off, the respondents ignored Clause (xi) of their own notification, which allows for relaxation in special circumstances

The Tribunal noted that the respondents had failed to even place the applicant’s case before the competent authority for such a determination despite the application being pending since 2021

The Tribunal disposed of the Original Application with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the applicant’s case for appointment on rehabilitation grounds. The final order must be passed within 90 days of receipt of the judgment. No order as to costs was made.