Deepak Kumar Pal vs Union Of India & Ors.

By Hon’ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A) We have joined the Division Bench online through video conferencing.

Shri Jitendra Nayak, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chanchal Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents are present.

The applicant seeks a direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to provide him employment in lieu of the land, which was owned by him and was acquired by the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited (DFCCIL) in the year 1981. By virtue of the present original application, he seeks the following reliefs:-

Learned counsel for the applicant draws attention to the document he has placed on record dated 16.7.2010 bearing No. E (NG) 11/2010/RC5/1. The said document contains detailed guidelines for providing employment to the persons who are rendered landless pursuant to the acquisition of their land for execution of the railway projects. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the case of the applicant is squarely covered under the said guidelines and instructions. Hence, he is deserving of employment in the Indian Railways in accordance with the said guidelines. He seeks a direction to the competent authority to provide him employment accordingly.

Learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, strongly raises two preliminary objections i.e. (a) inordinate delay in filing the present original application and (b) the issue of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondents mentions that the land of applicant was acquired in the year 1981 whereas he chose to file the present original application in the year 2018. There is absolutely no explanation for this inordinate delay. Moreover, he mentions that it is to be ascertained whether the said scheme is still applicable or not. He further mentions that there is no notification with respect to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal over the DFCCIL, which is a company under the Companies Act. It may be a Government of India Enterprises but being a commercial company, it does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Hence, this Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction in this matter.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant contests this argument, pointing out that the directions are to be given to the General Manager of the Railway, who is to take a decision and issue appropriate directions to DFCCIL for providing employment to the applicant.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, further draws attention to a document placed at page 27 dated 25.09.2012 wherein the General Manager of the DFCCIL has informed the present applicant that they have not received any guidelines or directions from the Railway Ministry with respect to providing employment to the persons whose land is acquired by the organization for execution of railway project. Hence, there is no question for providing him employment as they do not have any instructions or directions to this effect.

Learned counsel for the respondents also seeks deletion of the names of respondent No.1 and 3 from the array of respondents on the ground that they are not necessary parties and have no co-relation with the said petition.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant mentions that since the guidelines and directions of the Railway Board are addressed to the respondent No. 3, he is a necessary party. Moreover the representation of the applicant is addressed to respondent No. 3, hence he cannot be deleted.

While appreciating the arguments put-forth by the learned counsel for the parties, we order the deletion of respondent No. 1 from the array of respondent s.

We are not convinced that this is a case, which deserves condonation of delay. We are also not convinced that we have a jurisdiction over this matter. However, both these issues would require to be thrashed out during the course of hearing. Since the core issue involved pertains to the year 1981, there would be little purpose in prolonging this litigation and letting it linger on endlessly.

Accordingly, in the interest of justice and in all fairness, we are of the considered view that this matter can be disposed of at this stage itself by way of an advice to the competent authority amongst the respondents to take a decision, as deemed appropriate, on the pending representation dated 7.3.2017 of the applicant in accordance with the guidelines governing the subject. While deciding the representation, the competent authority may take into consideration the provisions of the relevant circulars issued by the Railway Board. With the aforesaid observation and advice, we dispose of this OA. It is made clear that we have neither commented upon the merits of the claim of the applicant nor given any directions to the respondents. No costs.

(Pratima K.Gupta) (Tarun Shridhar) Member (J) Member-A Manish/-