Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Amit Kumar Khanra vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 June, 2023
5
21.06.2023
D.Hira
Court No. 12
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
W.P.C.T. 104 of 2023
Amit Kumar Khanra
-versus
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Subhankar Sen,
Mr. Lord Chatterjee.
... for the petitioner
Mr. Sauvik Nandy,
Mr. Subrata Santra.
...For the respondent/UOI
The petitioners are land losers who agreed for
acquisition of their land for Nandigram Deshapran
Project and Arambag Bowaichandi Railway Project on the
assurance given that one person of their family will be
given employment by the respondent railway authorities.
When the respondents failed to honour their assurance
and failed to give appointment to any one of the family
members of land losers, they approached the Tribunal by
filing original applications and obtained orders.
This Court also passed various orders for
relaxation of age for considering the persons from the
family of the land losers for appointment in the railways.
This Court by order dated 8.2.2019 in WPCT No.74 of
2016 passed the following orders:-
"21. It is evident from the materials-on-record that
even land losers, who were 47 years old, have been
offered appointment. The respondent no.1 was 46 years
old on the date he approached the tribunal for the first
time. When his claim was rejected by the first order
dated July 15, 2014, age-bar was not cited as a ground
therefor. What we find is that there were absence of
certain documents/papers for which the claim of the
respondent no.1 could not be put up before the
screening committee for screening. If indeed that was the
reason for regretting his prayer, the petitioners ought to
have asked the respondent no.1 to supply the
documents, which were not there in the file, instead of
closing his right to claim appointment. We, therefore,
propose to pass the following further directions to close
the breach:
(i) within a period of seven days from date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment and order,
the Chief Personnel Officer shall intimate the
respondent no.1, which of the documents are
required from his end for ensuring placement
of his claim before the screening committee;
(ii) within a month of receipt of such intimation,
the respondent no.1 shall produce the
necessary documents/papers before the
Chief Personnel Officer and upon receipt of
such documents/papers the claim of the
respondent no.1 shall be placed before the
screening committee for an appropriate
decision;
(iii) bearing in mind the fact that other land losers
have been offered appointment even upon
attaining 47 years of age, we hope and trust
that the screening committee shall not cite
age-bar as a ground for not considering the
claim of the respondent no.1 and if a power of
relaxation is indeed available to consider
invocation of such power if the merits of the
case so warrants; and
(iv) the entire exercise shall be completed as
early as possible but not beyond June 30,
2019."
The petitioners herein and others filed separate
Original Applications before the Tribunal. The Tribunal,
considering the judgement dated 8.2.2019 referred to
above passed in WPCT 74 of 2016, by order dated
16.3.2020 passed the following order:-
"10. In view of the direction of the Hon'ble High
Court supra, and our revelations as indicated above, we
feel it appropriate in the interest of justice, to direct the
respondents to undertake an identical exercise as
directed by the Hon'ble High Court in WPCT 74 of 2016
and issue appropriate order in regard to the present
applicants within 4 months."
The petitioners herein and others filed various
contempt petitions before the Tribunal alleging non-
compliance of the order of the Tribunal dated 16.3.2020.
The Tribunal by orders dated 18.4.2023 and 9.5.2023
dismissed the contempt petitions holding that the
respondents have substantially complied with the order
dated 16.3.2020. Against the said orders the petitioners
have filed the present writ petitions.
We have heard Mr. Subhankar Sen, learned
Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sauvik Nandy,
learned Counsel for the respondent railway authorities.
The grievance of the petitioners before the Tribunal
in the contempt petition is that the respondents have
failed to grant age relaxation for the petitioners and also
introduced a new condition of Physical Efficiency Test
(PET). They further contended that there is no provision
for PET at any point of time before the 2019 circular
issued by the railways. They also contended that the
Tribunal failed to consider the grievances of the
petitioners and erroneously dismissed the contempt
petitions on the ground that the respondents have
substantially complied with the order dated 16.3.2020.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners
referred to the Physical Efficiency Test which land losers
are compelled to undergo and contended that for other
land losers, PET was not applied. Learned Counsel for
the petitioners also submitted that earlier the very same
Tribunal by the interim order dated 27.9.2022 charged
the respondents for non-compliance of the order dated
16.3.2020. Again the said order the writ petitions filed in
WPCT Nos.105, 106 and 107 of 2020 were dismissed by
this Court confirming the order passed by the Tribunal
framing charge against the respondents. The said order
has become final and the respondents have not filed any
appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Subsequently, the Tribunal erroneously dismissed
the contempt petitions on the ground that the
respondents have substantially complied with the order
of this Court.
It is the contention of the learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioners that this Court clarified that
the Physical Efficiency Test and age bar were not criteria
for granting appointment to the persons from the family
of the land losers.
It is the contention of the learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioners that the appointment to the
land losers is not a recruitment through regular process.
The petitioners are discriminated by compelling them to
undergo PET.
A plain reading of the order dated 16.3.2020
reveals that the Tribunal following the judgment of this
Court dated 8.2.2019 passed in WPCT 74 of 2016
directed the respondents to undertake an identical
exercise as directed by this Court in WPCT 74 of 2016
and issued order in this regard to the petitioners.
According to the learned Counsel for the
petitioners, the respondents have not followed the
direction given by this Court and did not exercise the
identical process in complying with the claim of the
petitioners.
On the other hand, it is the contention of the
learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that the
respondents are taking steps to comply with the order
dated 16.3.2020 passed by the Tribunal in OA 75 of
2017, OA 1824 of 2016, OA 1822 of 2016 and OA 1192
of 2016 and requested four months time for complying
with the order as directed by this Court in WPCT 74 of
2016 and they will follow the very same procedure for
the petitioners also.
In view of the same, orders of the Tribunal
dismissing the contempt petitions are set aside.
The respondents are directed to comply with the
order dated 16.3.2020 by adopting identical process as
adopted for the petitioner in WPCT 74 of 2016 while
considering the claim of the petitioners and pass orders
within four months from today. If the respondents fail to
comply with the order, it is open to the petitioners to
mention before the Tribunal for reopening the contempt
petitions for not complying with the order passed by the
Tribunal dated 16.3.2020 or to approach this Court.
With the aforesaid direction, W.P.C.T. 104 of 2023
is allowed.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.
(Ms. V.M. Velumani, J.)
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)
