Krishna Mallik vs Union Of India & Ors.

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

According to Ld. Counsel for the applicant, applicant's father submitted application seeking employment assistance in his favour in lieu of acquisition of a portion of land of his family by the Railways for the purpose of construction of Khurda Road-Bolangir New B.G.Railway Link Project. Since, his request was not considered, he approached this Bench in OA No. 425/2012, which was allowed vide order dated 31.10.2014 with direction to the Respondent-Railways to consider the case of the father of the present applicant [Babuli Mallik @ Lachamana Jena] in the light of the Notification of the Railway dated 16.07.2010, keeping in mind the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Krushna Chandra Nayak in WP(C) No. 5102/2013 dated 14.05.2014. Respondent-Railways considered the case of the father of the applicant [Babuli Malik @ Lachamana Jena] but rejected the same vide letter No. ECoR/Pers/Rectt./BM dated 13.11.2018, on the ground that he lacks minimum educational qualification even for appointment to Gr. D post in Railways. Hence, the present applicant, who is having the qualification of B.Sc. with proficiency in PGDCA submitted application dated 28.11.2019 for consideration of his case for employment assistance but the respondents did not pay any heed to such request. It is submitted by him that the project is an ongoing project till date. As per the Scheme, one member of the family whose land has been acquired by the Railways by the project is entitled to employment assistance. The Respondents department in compliance of the order of this Bench considered the case of his father but rejected the same on the ground that the father of the applicant had not minimum requisite qualification even for Group-D post. Thus, they ought to have considered the case of the present applicant, which they did not do, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Further, RBE No. 99/2010 dated 16.07.2010, RBE No. 120/2010 dated 13.08.2010 and Railway Board Letter dated 28.09.2010 were withdrawn by the respondents vide RBE No. 193/2019 dated 11.11.2019, which cannot stand on the way of considering the case of the applicant for the reasons that the said RBE No. 193/2019 shall be effective from the date it came into existence on 11.11.2019 and, that, once the case of the father of the applicant was considered but was rejected due to lack of qualification by him, the respondents are bound to consider the case of the applicant, who is having all eligibility, especially when, as per the mandate, one member of the family, whose land was acquired by the Railways, is to be provided employment assistance and, admittedly, no such assistance was provided to any of his family members. He has relied on the orders of this Bench dated 23.02.2026 in OA Nos. 750/2023 [Budhia Muduli Vs UOI & Ors.] and 142/2023 [Balaram Muduli Vs UOI & Ors]. Hence, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has passionately prayed for a direction to the Respondent-Railway to provide him appointment as a land oustee, in the light of the decision in the case of Krushna Chandra Nayak as prayed for by him in this OA.

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, placing reliance on the averments made in the counter, pleaded that this OA is not maintainable being suffered/hit by the law of limitation and, that, the Scheme based on which the applicant sought appointment as land oustee is no more available for the same being withdrawn long before vide RBE No. 193/2019 dated 11.11.2019. It is stated that since the request for providing employment as land oustee of his father was considered and rejected way back vide letter No. ECoR/Pers/Rectt./BM dated 13.11.2018, the right for consideration ceased to exist since the scheme do not confer an inherent or absolute right to claim appointment by making application at any time, one after the other, by different members of the family, as in the instant case. In support of the stand that this OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed, they have placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 07.11.2024 in SLP (C) No(s). 30798/2024 and in the case of P.Singaravelan & Ors etc vs District Collector, Tiruppur and DT & Ors etc in Civil Appeal No. 9533-9537 of 2019. It has also been stated that the decision in the case of Krushna Chandra Nayak has no application to the present case and, cannot be taken as binding precedent, they have placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Curt in the case of Kunhayammed & Ors Vs State of Kerala & Anr., (2006) 6 SCC 359. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel for the respondents prayed that this OA being devoid of any merit as well as limitation, is liable to be dismissed.

After giving full-fledged hearing to the matter, we have perused the records. We find that admittedly in compliance with the earlier order of this Bench dated 31.10.2014 in OA No. 425/2012 and with reference to the mandate of the Railway Board vide RBE No. 99/2010 dated 16.07.2010 and keeping in mind the decision of the jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court of Hon’ble Orissa, in the case of Krushna Chandra Nayak in WP(C) No. 5102/2013 dated 14.05.2014, respondents considered the case of the father of the applicant for employment assistance but rejected the same vide order dated 13.11.2018 on the sole ground that his father does not have the minimum educational qualification and no sooner such rejection the applicant who is having the requisite educational qualification submitted application on 28.11.2019 for consideration of his case for employment assistance and it is not in dispute that the project is still in operation. In the said circumstances, we are not satisfied that this OA suffers from limitation in any manner. Similarly, in view of the facts and circumstances, noted above, we do not find any such justifiable ground to accept the plea of the respondents that the withdrawal of the circular vide RBE No. 193/2019 dated 11.11.2019 can in any manner affect the right of the applicant for being considered pursuant to the RBE dated 16.07.2010, especially when, in the RBE dated 11.11.2019 it was specifically stated that the said policy dated 11.11.2019 shall be effective from the date of issue, and law propounded by the jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Krushra Chandra Nayak (supra). Hence, both the pleas raised by the respondents are hereby overruled. We have also gone through the decisions relied on by the respondents but we find that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, those decisions are not applicable to the case in hand.

We have also examined the earlier order of this Bench dated 23.02.2026 in OA Nos. 750/2023 [Budhia Muduli Vs UOI & Ors.] and 142/2023 [Balaram Muduli Vs UOI & Ors]. We find that this Bench after negativing the application of RBE dated 11.11.2019 to the cases whose land was acquired prior to that date and, considering that the Project is still in operation, directed for consideration of rehabilitation assistance by taking into consideration the RBE dated 16.07.2010 and the law laid by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Krushna Chandra Nayak. We find no such distinguishable ground to deviate from the view already taken in the above cases, especially when, the present case, in the facts and circumstances discussed above, stands in a better footing that the case of his father was considered but rejected as he was lacking in educational qualification and as per RBE dated 16.07.2010, one member of the family is to be provide employment assistance, which has not been done in the instant case although the applicant is one of the family members of the landoustee is not in dispute. For the discussions made above, the case of the applicant deserves affirmative consideration for employment assistance as one of the family members of the landoustee within a stipulated period, which is fixed to be not later than 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

In the result, this OA stands allowed to the extent stated above by making the costs easy.