Chattisgarh High Court
Union Of India vs Devchandra Chandawanshi on 11 October, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 6312 of 2022
1. Union of India Through The General Manager, South East Central
Railway Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh -492004.
2. The Deputy Chief Personal Officer, (Construction) South East
Central Railway, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh -495001.
3. The Deputy Chief Personal Officer, (Construction) South East
Central Railway, District Nagpur (Mh) -440001.
4. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), South East Central Railway,
Nainpur, District Mandla (Mp) -306104
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Devchandra Chandawanshi S/o Shri Bhopat Chandrawanshi Aged
About 44 Years Occupation Unemployed R/o Village Bhoma Tola,
Tehsil Seoni And District Seoni (MP)-480661
2. Collector, Seoni District Seoni (MP) 480661
3. Sub Divisional Officer (R), Seoni District (MP) -480661
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
11.10.2022
Heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for
the petitioners.
2. Mr. Mishra submits that he has placed on record relevant copies of
page No.15 & 16, which are not legible. He further submits that this case
is squarely covered by the judgment dated 23.09.2022 passed in Writ
Petition (S) No.5804 of 2022 (Union of India and Others v. Vijay
Jaiswal) .
3. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 29.04.2022
passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench,
Jabalpur, (for short, the CAT) in Original Application No.200/00356/2022.
4. Land measuring 0.87 hectares in Khasra No.222/1 at village Bhoma
Tola, Patwari Halka No.76, Tehsil and District Seoni, Madhya Pradesh,
belonging to respondent No.1 was acquired by the petitioners for
construction of Chhindwara-Nainpur-Mandla Railway Line.
5. The Government of India, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, New
Delhi had issued a circular / policy dated 16.07.2010 for providing
employment assistance to one of the family members whose land is
acquired for railway projects. Subsequently, Railway Board had
formulated a new policy vide RBE No.193 of 2019, dated 11.11.2019 on
the same subject matter.
6. In connection with the land acquired, award was made by the Sub
Divisional Officer (Revenue) on 31.10.2013. Original Application was filed
by the respondent No. 1 herein as applicant before the CAT complaining
that he was not granted the benefit of appointment in compliance of the
circular dated 16.07.2010.
7. The learned CAT had held that as the land of respondent No.1 was
acquired prior to issuance of policy dated 11.11.2019, the case of the
applicant ought to have been considered as per earlier policy dated
16.07.2010, and accordingly, had directed the present petitioners
(respondents before the CAT) to consider the case of the applicant for
employment assistance within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of copy of the order.
8. In Vijay Jaiswal (supra), at paragraphs 11 to 13, this Court had
observed as follows :
"11. A perusal of the said policy would go to show
that irrespective of whether the land acquisition for
railway projects was done through the Railways Act,
1989 after declaring it as Special Railway Project or
through State Governments, determination of
compensation shall be made in accordance with the
First, Second and Third Schedules of the Act of
2013 and accordingly, the policy of offering
appointment in Railways to affected land losers was
withdrawn and circulars issued in that regard were
superseded.
12. Clause 5 of the policy, however, makes it
amply clear that the new policy shall be effective
from the date of the issue of the letter. Therefore,
there is no manner of doubt that the earlier policy
which was withdrawn continued to remain in force till
issuance of the notification dated 11.11.2019.
13. In view of the above discussion, the view
taken by the CAT cannot be faulted with.
Resultantly, we find no merit in this petition and the
same is dismissed."
9. In view of above decision of this Court, necessarily, this writ petition
has to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Sanjay Agrawal)
Chief Justice Judge
Anu
