Union Of India vs Sameer Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 4493 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                        NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            WPS No. 4874 of 2022
1.    Union of India Through The General Manager, South East Central
      Railway, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2.    The Divisional Railway Manager South East Central Railway, Bilaspur
3.    The Chief Administrative Officer (Construction) Personnel Branch
      South East Central Railway, Bilaspur
4.    The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer (Construction) Personnel
      Branch South East Central Railway, Bilaspur
5.    The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer South East Central Railway,
      Bilaspur
6.    The Divisional Personnel Officer South East Central Railway,
      Divisional Office, Personnel Department, Kingsway Nagpur
                                                               ---- Petitioners
                                     Versus
1.    Sameer Kumar S/o Bhaurao Rout Khandura Aged About 36 Years
      Mohalla At P.O. - Linga, Tahsil - Mohkhed, District : Chhindwara,
      Madhya Pradesh
2.    Ankit S/o Shesh Shah Aged About 28 Years Khandura Mohalla, At
      P.O. - Linga, Tahsil - Mohkhed, District : Chhindwara, Madhya
      Pradesh
3.    Rashi Rout S/o Rambhau Rout Aged About 24 Years At P.O. - Linga
      Tahsil - Mohkhed, District : Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh
                                                           ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioners : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Assistant Solicitor General

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

14.07.2022

Heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General for

the petitioners.

2. This petition is presented against an order dated 04.01.2022 passed

by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting at

Bilaspur (for short, 'CAT') in Original Application No.203/00289/2021, by

which the CAT directed the appellants to consider the case of the applicants

before the CAT for appointment within a period of three months.

3. The applicants before the CAT are grandsons of ancestors, whose

lands were acquired for the purpose of extension of broad-gauge railway

lines from Nagpur to Chhindwada. The appellants had a policy for giving

appointment to sole owner of land or son/daughter/husband/wife of the sole

owner, whose land or a portion thereof was acquired for the project.

4. Mr. Mishra submits that this petition is squarely covered by an order of

this Court dated 08.04.2022 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.2480 of 2022 and

accordingly, he submits that this writ petition may be disposed of in the light

of the said order.

5. In the order dated 08.04.2022 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.2480 of

2022, at paragraphs-3 to 6, it was observed as follows :

"3. The applicants before the CAT are grandsons of

ancestors, whose lands were acquired for the

purpose of extension of broad-gauge railway lines

from Nagpur to Chhindwada. The appellants had a

policy for giving appointment to sole owner of land

or son/daughter/husband/wife of the sole owner,

whose land or a portion thereof was acquired for the

project.

4. The learned CAT relied on its earlier judgment in

case of Yashvant Kumar v. Union of India (Original

Application No.203/929/2014), decided on

28.11.2017, which was affirmed by the Division

Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.1349 of

2018 (South East Central Railway and Others v.

Yashvant and Others), decided on 03.04.2018, and

accordingly, issued the directions as noted

hereinabove.

5. It is pointed by Mr. Mishra that against the

judgment of this Court dated 03.04.2018 passed in

Writ Petition (S) No.1349 of 2018, a Special Leave

Petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, which is pending consideration.

6. As the Division Bench of this Court in Writ

Petition (S) No.1349 of 2018 had held that a

grandson was entitled to be appointed on

rehabilitation ground due to extension of railway

route, we see no good ground to interfere with the

order of the learned CAT."

6. In view of the above submission of Mr. Mishra and in view of the order

dated 08.04.2022 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.2480 of 2022, the writ

petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No cost.

                         Sd/-                                        Sd/-
               (Arup Kumar Goswami)                        (Parth Prateem Sahu)
                     Chief Justice                                  Judge

Anu