Union Of India vs Gourav Yadav
2022 Latest Caselaw 5941 Chatt

                                                1

                                                                                 NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                     Writ Petition (S) No. 4880 of 2022

1.    Union of India, Through The General Manager, South East Central
      Railway Bilaspur District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 495004.

2.    Assistant Personal Officer for Senior Divisional Officer, SECR,
      Divisional Office, Personnel Department, Kings Way, Nagpur,
      Maharashtra- 440001.

3.    Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) & Land Acquisition Officer,
      Jabalpur Through The Collector, District Jabalpur, M.P.- 482001

                                                                        ---- Petitioners

                                          Versus

Gourav Yadav, S/o Shri Pradeep Yadav, aged about 31 years, Now R/o
H.No. 805, Near Bargi Market, P.O. Village Bargi, Tehsil & District
Jabalpur M.P.- 482051

                                                                      ---- Respondent

(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 Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, Judge

Order on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

22.09.2022

Heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General for

the petitioners.

2. This petition is presented against an order dated 14.03.2022

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit

Sitting at Bilaspur (for short, 'CAT') in Original Application

No.200/970/2021, by which the CAT directed the respondents to consider

the case of the applicant before the CAT for appointment within a period

of three months.

3. The applicant before the CAT is grandson of ancestor, whose land

is acquired for the purpose of extension of broad-gauge railway lines from

Gondia to Jabalpur. The respondents 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 Eastern 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.

7. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No cost.

                         Sd/-                                    Sd/-
                  (Arup Kumar Goswami)                   (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
                      Chief Justice                            Judge

Brijmohan