Madhya Pradesh High Court
Charan Prakash Kushwaha vs Union Of India on 13 March, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Anand Pathak, Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6279
1 RP-1266-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 13th OF MARCH, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 1266 of 2024
CHARAN PRAKASH KUSHWAHA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri A.K. Nirankari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar - DSG for Union of India.
ORDER
Per: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke
This present review petition has been directed against the order dated
17.03.2023 passed by this Court in M.P. No.3092/2022, whereby after
considering the submissions made by counsel for the present respondents, the
order of the tribunal was modified to the extent of consideration of the case of the
present review petitioner in the light of the prevailing circulars especially, the
circular dated 11.11.2019 and, thereafter, to pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law.
2. The aforesaid order has been assailed on the ground that it had been
passed without issuance of notice and without providing any opportunity of
hearing to the present petitioner and as the said mistake is apparent on the face of
the record, the order impugned deserves to be recalled and modified.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the order passed by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6279
2 RP-1266-2024
the Tribunal dated 03.01.2020 passed in O.A. No.202/00229/2016 has argued
before this Court that in the light of decision of Apex Court in the matter of
Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another reported in
AIR 2011 SC 1989 wherein it had been held that the persons whose land has been
acquired, has a right to compassionate appointment in accordance with the policy.
It was held by the Tribunal that the point of age of a person and other factors
could not be considered in such situation because the right to employment had
already accrued to the applicant at relevant point of time, so the delay would not
come in way while considering the case of the petitioner coupled with attaining
the age of majority and while quashing the order passed by the Deputy Chief
Engineer, Construction, Gwalior dated 21.01.2016, whereby an application for
appointment of the review petitioner in lieu of the acquisition of the land for the
purpose of laying down Guna-Etawah broad Gauge railway-line was rejected with
a direction to reconsider the case of the present review petitioner for his
appointment and hiding this direction issued by the Tribunal on the very first date
of hearing, innocuous prayer was made by the present respondents to modify the
order dated 09.05.2022 to consider the case of the applicant in the light of
prevailing circulars especially circular dated 11.11.2019 and considering the said
prayer, the miscellaneous petition was disposed of on the very first date of
hearing, therefore, the petitioner could not bring the material facts before the
Court which had made this Court to pass an erroneous order which deserves to be
recalled, reviewed and modified.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision of the Apex
Court in the matter of Anil Kumar vs Union of India and Ors. reported in 2019(5)
SCC 591 and had argued that where a policy has been laid down by the Union
Government as in the present case, the terms of the policy is required to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6279
3 RP-1266-2024
enforced and failure of implementation of the said policy would result in failure of
social justice as the policy circulars are substantive attempts to enhance social
welfare and denial of benefits to the petitioner would lead to a long and tortuous
road to justice and while referring to another judgment of Apex Court in the
matter of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd and Others etc vs. M/S Tata
Communications Ltd. Etc. reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 792 it is argued that
the administrative/executive orders or circulars in absence of any legislative
competence cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect and only law
could be made retrospective if it was expressly provided by the legislature in the
statute.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid dictums of the Apex Court it was argued
that though the policy circulars issued by Union of India dated 01.01.1983 or the
subsequent circular dated 19.04.2006 dealt with appointment of Group C and D
posts in the railways of the members of the family who were displaced as a result
of acquisition of land for establishment of projects and certain guidelines were
framed under the policy circulars under which it was specified that the zonal
railways and production units and also project authorities may consider
applications received from persons displaced on account of large scale acquisition
of land for railway projects, so as to provide employment to the displaced persons
or their sons/daughter or spouse in Group C and Group IV posts were holding
field till issuance of new policy dated 11.11.2019, which was made effective
retrospectively, the said policy circular dated 11.11.2019 in the light of the
judgment of the Apex Court in the mater of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (supra)
would only have a prospective effect and, therefore, would not be applicable to
the case of the present review petitioner and, therefore, the directions issued by
this Court to consider the case of the present petitioner in light of the circular
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6279
4 RP-1266-2024
dated 11.11.2019 being per se illegal deserves to be reviewed, recalled and
modified.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, Shri Praveen
Newaskar, DSG submits that no illegality has been committed by this Court in
acceding to the innocuous prayer made by the respondents in modifying the order
of the Tribunal dated 03.01.2020 to the extent of consideration of the case of the
present review petitioner in light of the prevailing circular especially circular
dated 11.11.2019 which had super-ceded the earlier circulars and since there is no
mistake apparent on the face of the record or any sufficient reason as required for
reviewing any order, the application is wholly mis-conceived and, therefore, is
liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record.
8. This Court while passing the impugned order dated 17.03.2023 had
modified the order of Tribunal and had directed the authorities to consider the
case of the review petitioner in the light of the prevailing circulars especially the
circular dated 11.11.2019 and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
9. The review has been sought on the ground that the said order was passed
ex parte without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity of
hearing. When the matter is closely scrutinized, this Court finds that the order of
the Tribunal was for consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on
a compassionate ground in lieu of acquisition of land of his father for the purpose
of laying down Guna-Etawah Broadgauge Railway-line, and was modified to the
extent of consideration in light of the prevailing circulars especially circular dated
11.11.2019.
10. Whether the said circular would be applicable to the case of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6279
5 RP-1266-2024
petitioner or not can be considered by the competent authority while considering
the case of the petitioner. Thus, this Court doesn't find any reason to review or
recall the aforesaid order on this ground alone as no right of the petitioner has
been curtailed or infringed that would seriously affect his claim, however, this
Court deems it appropriate to direct the competent authority that apart from the
aforesaid circulars, law with regard to retrospective or prospective application of
the circulars as settled by the Apex Court be also taken note of as has been
directed in para 30 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Bharat
Sanchar Nigam (supra) and also the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
matter of Anil Kumar (supra)
11.With the aforesaid directions, this review petition is partly allowed and
disposed of.
(ANAND PATHAK) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Chandni
