Shailendra Kumar Mishra vs Union Of India & Ors.

( By Hon’ble Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member(Administrative)

This OA is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 claiming following relief:-

The facts of the case of the applicant is that he alleges that his grandfather lost certain land in land acquisition to the respondent department in the year 1975 and on 07.03.1988 and his grandfather applied for compensatory appointment of the applicant as one of the members of the land looser’s family when he became major and the said application remained without any response, hence, was followed by various applications dated 11.05.1989, 04.07.1990, 16.08.1993, 18.09.1995 and 09.10.1998, 14.09.2004, 11.04.2006, 06.11.2009 and 12.04.2010, then the applicant filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19623/2010 before the Hon’ble High Court Allahabad which came to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedies and then the applicant filed OA No. 1089/2010 wherein the order was passed on 05.07.2011 and following directions were given:-

The applicant gave a representation before the General Manager, North Eastern Railway with a subject for passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months in favour of my employment in the light of direction given by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench which was sent by post on 26.08.2011. Pursuant to which the respondents had passed an order dated 12/21.09.2011 which is order impugned by which they rejected the claim of the applicant and did not give him compensatory employment. The contention of the applicant is that the said rejection order is against the Railway Board letter dated 31.12.1982/01.01.1983 and it is not a speaking order and the respondents had violated the constitutional right of livelihood of the applicant and the said order is illegal, arbitrary and livelihood and violates the Article 14, 16 & 21.

On notice, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit where they accept the basic fact of the case that pursuant to the order in OA No. 1089/2010 by the Tribunal dated 05.07.2011 wherein the direction was issued to the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation of the applicant dated 12.04.2010 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months and they contend that the said order has been fully complied by General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur vide his order dated 12/21.09.2011 which was got served on the applicant and the applicant has come to this forum after one year delay in the year 2013 of the said order, so, this OA is barred under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and that the said order is speaking and perfectly legal and valid and without any bias and without any irregularity and illegality.

They say that under Araazi No. 302 one Jatashankar S/o Shivshampt Village Jagdeeshpur Tappa Kapari Mehso, Pargana Mahuli West Tehsil and Distt. Basti and having area of 17 Bissa 18 Dhur was acquired in favour of Railway Administration and accordingly for the said acquisition of his land as per law and Rules existing then in the year 1975. Compensation of Rs. 3246.66/- was made to the said land looser and at that point of time there was no condition regarding the appointment in Railway Administration for any land loser family, therefore no family member of Shri Jatashankar was given employment along with the compensation. And the applicant relies on a Railway Board letter dated 31.12.1992/01.01.1983 which was in force only for two years and the said provision did not have any retrospective effect and which was not applicable in the case of the applicant. And therefore, based on that reasoning, his said application was rejected. Hence, there is no merit in the case of the applicant and his case should be dismissed.

Further, the contention that the claim of the employment of the applicant is after 35 years of land acquisition and is highly time barred and which is not justifiable at all and their order dated 12/21.09.2011 is as per law and is absolutely correct and so the present OA should be dismissed.

Rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the applicant where he reiterates his stand as in the OA and he says that the General Manager’s order is neither correct nor legal but he did not file any evidence or furnished any other record or facts.

The case came up for final hearing on 24.04.2024. Shri S K Om, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K K OJha, learned counsel for the respondents were present and heard.

We have carefully examined the entire record and considered the rival contention.

From the record, it is evident that the applicant has furnished following documents for perusal before us. Annexure A1 is the order impugned dated 12/21.09.2011. In addition, he has filed thirteen other documents in the Compilation II which is reproduced below:-

Now, examination of these documents shows that True copy of the judgment what is written as item 12 is not filed in the record but other from 1-10 are the copy of the applications of the applicant and 11 is the True copy of the order of the Tribunal and 13 is the True copy of the applicant's application to the General Manager pursuant to the order of the Tribunal. Hence, it is clear that the alleged Board Letter which the applicant wants to rely on for his claim, which was dated 31.12.1992/1982/01.01.1983 is not furnished for our perusal. Hence, we cannot first hand examine as to what was the scope and purport of the said letter and hence, the applicant cannot claim any benefit flowing out of the letter, as we are left with no other option but to draw adverse inferences for non presenting of the said document relied and asserted by the applicant.

Further, we have carefully scrutinized the impugned order dated 12/21.09.2011 which reads following:-

Simple reading of the above shows that it is a speaking order and it clearly mentions that it is pursuant to the order of the CAT, Allahabad dated 05.07.2011 to decide the application of the applicant dated 12.04.2010 and they say that they have examined the records of Munderwa Bevan Badi Line Project work, files of the year 1975 and all the related records and after examination of the record they discover that the land in village Jagdishpur, Tappa Kapari Mahso Paragana Mahuli, west Tehsil, District- Basti Arazzi No. 302 in Badi Line Project of the Railways, the land was acquired in the year 1975, and that the said Circular dated 31.12.1992/1982/01.01.1983 was not in existence in 1975 and the said letter had no retrospective effect, further from the date of issue of the said letter it was prospectively in effect for only two years, so the applicant cannot claim any benefit of the same and we find the reasoning of the respondents reasonable and acceptable.

Further, they say that the said letter dated 31.12.1992/1982/01.01.1983 on land acquisition was in effect for two years only from the date of the said order prospectively. Hence, in case of Shri Jatashankar, Son of Shivshampt none of his family members were given any employment as the policy did not exist at that point of time and in lieu of the 17 Bissa, 18 Dhur land, full and complete compensation of Rs. 3246.66 was given to Shri Jatashankar in the year 1975 and so nothing else was payable to the said family. Hence, after 35 years asking for some compensatory employment for a family member based on non-existent policy which came much later and that also for only for two years, is not justifiable. Hence, his application was rejected.

From the very reading of the order, we are convinced and we have no doubt in our mind that it is a speaking order after due application of mind and is just and reasonable as per the facts and existing Rules. All Circulars are having prospective effect and quoting a Circular and not presenting its copy would only be adverse for the claimant. Accordingly, we find that the applicant has not been able to make out any case for himself and hence, we pass the following orders:-

This Original Application is dismissed. All associated MAs stand disposed of, accordingly. No order as to cost.