LAWS(CHH)-2019-7-85

UNION OF INDIA Vs. MALEJRAM

Decided On July 15, 2019
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
Malejram Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein call in question legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting Bilaspur (hereinafter called as "Tribunal") by which the said Tribunal has allowed the Original Application filed by respondents No.1 and 2 herein and set aside the order dated 12.9.2013 passed by the petitioner-Railways rejecting the application of respondent No.2 herein to consider his case for employment under the relevant scheme dated 13.10.2010.

(2.) Respondents No.1 and 2 were originally applicants before the Tribunal who had filed Original Application stating inter-alia that the land bearing khasra No.436, area 0.138 hectare situated at village Kosmanda was acquired by the petitioner-Railways for the purpose of construction of Champa bypass railway line, but in lieu of acquisition of land as per prevalent policy, one of them have not been given employment nor they have been given compensation. Therefore, they are entitled for consideration for employment as per circular dated 13.10.2010 and rejection of claim of respondents No.1 and 2 by order dated 12.9.2013 is arbitrary and one of the applicants i.e. applicant No.2/respondent No.2 herein is entitled to be appointed.

(3.) The petitioner-Railways filed its reply before the Tribunal and opposed the prayer for grant of consideration for employment stating inter-alia that for the purpose of railway project, land of respondents No.1 and 2 herein jointly held in the names of Malejram, Kaleshram and Rohit, Sons of Shri Gokul bearing khasra Nos.446/2, 457 and 448/3, was acquired and in lieu of that acquired land, the petitioner-Railways has already provided employment to Karan Kumar, S/o Shri Kaleshram, as proposed by land acquisition officer and therefore, the Railways has rightly rejected the claim of respondents No.1 and 2 and they are not entitled to be reconsidered.