Circulars/Notices – Appellant’s father constructed a residential house – Land over which the house was constructed was acquired for a Railway Project – List of persons displaced in consequence of the project undertaken by the Railways – Recommendation of the appellant’s case for appointment in service in terms of policy circular of the Railway Board dated 19th April, 2006 offering employment to displaced persons – Writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court seeking benefit of the said circular – High Court directed that the claim of the appellant be considered for the grant of Group ‘D’ employment – Appellant submitted representation – Rejected – Second Writ Petition filed by the appellant – Rejected by Single Judge – Order affirmed by the Division Bench – On appeal, held: Initially by circular dated 1st January, 1983, the Railway Board dealt with appointment to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts in the Railways, of members of families displaced as a result of the acquisition of land for the establishment of projects – Said Policy circular was specifically adverted to in the subsequent circular dated 19th April, 2006– As per the subsequent circular the Railway Board decided that the policy to offer employment to displaced persons should not cover displaced persons where only a strip of land had been acquired – At the same time, it also stipulated that the claim can be considered for appointment against a Group ‘D’ post where a “large area, house or substantial livelihood has been taken away/snapped in the process” – Case of the appellant fell within the ambit of paragraph 2 of the circular dated 19th April, 2006 – Entire house of the appellant was demolished – Rejection of the appellant’s claim was contrary to the terms of the binding policy circular formulated by the Union of India in the Ministry of Railways – Undoubtedly, the grant of appointment to persons displaced as a result of acquisition is a matter which is within the purview of the policy discretion – No mandamus can lie in the absence of a policy – However, where a policy has been laid down by the Union government as in the present case, the terms of the policy can be enforced – Impugned judgment set aside – Appellant’s claim for appointment to a Group ‘D’ post be implemented within a period of two months from today by granting an age relaxation, if required. Father of the appellant constructed a residential house. The land over which the house was constructed was acquired for the Ara-Sasaram Railway Project. Name of the appellant’s father occurred in a list of the persons displaced in consequence of the project undertaken by the Railways. Appellant’s case was recommended for appointment in service in terms of policy circular of the Railway Board dated 19th April 2006. After the appellant’s father died, writ petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court seeking benefit of the said circular. The High Court directed the claim of the appellant to be considered for the grant of Group ‘D’ employment. Appellant submitted representation, which was rejected. Second writ petition filed by the appellant was rejected by the Single Judge. Order affirmed by the Division Bench. Hence, the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The policy circular dated 1 January 1983 was specifically adverted to in the subsequent circular dated 19 April 2006. The subsequent circular stipulates that the Railway Board had decided that the policy to offer employment to displaced persons should not cover displaced persons where only a strip of land had been acquired. At the same time, it stipulated that the claim can be considered for appointment against a Group ‘D’ post where a “large area, house or substantial livelihood has been taken away/snapped in the process”. The case of the appellant fell within the ambit of paragraph 2 of the circular dated 19 April 2006. In rejecting the application of the appellant, the ground which weighed with the Railway Authorities was that only a strip of land belonging to the appellant had been acquired. This is not a correct reading of the circular. The circular contemplates that when a large area, house or substantial livelihood have been taken away, the case for providing alternative employment in a Group ‘D’ post would be considered. Those phrases are disjunctive. The entire house of the appellant was demolished. It was stated that there was no specific guideline from the Railway authorities to provide a job in lieu of acquisition of land in Ara-Sasaram project. This was not a valid ground to reject the claim, once there was a general policy circular dated 19 April 2006 which held the field. In the counter affidavit that was filed before the High Court, an additional ground was sought to be urged namely that it was only if an exception is granted by the Ministry of Railways that the application would be considered for appointment in accordance with the prevailing norms. There is no justification for this submission since it would result in the exercise of a pick and choose approach, contrary to the policy circular dated 19 April 2006. [Paras 17, 18][1161-B-G]
1.2 The rejection of the claim of the appellant was contrary to the terms of the binding policy circular formulated by the Union of India in the Ministry of Railways. Undoubtedly, the grant of appointment to persons displaced as a result of acquisition is a matter which is within the purview of the policy discretion. No mandamus can lie in the absence of a policy. However, where a policy has been laid down by the Union government as in the present case, the terms of the policy can be enforced. The rejection of the claim of the appellant was for extraneous reasons and based on irrelevant considerations. Government in the Ministry of Railways formulated a policy. The failure of implementation results in a failure of social justice. The policy circulars were substantive attempts to enhance social welfare. Denial of benefits to the appellant has led to a long and tortuous road to justice. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The claim of the appellant for appointment to a Group ‘D’ post shall be implemented within a period of two months from today by granting an age relaxation, if required. [Paras 19, 20][1161-G-H; 1162-A-D]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.