ANIL KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 1153 · Decided: 22-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1153
                             ANIL KUMAR
               v.
                        UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                     (Civil Appeal  No.1958 of 2019)
                            FEBRUARY 22, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Circulars/Notices – Appellant’s father constructed a
residential house – Land over which the house was constructed
was acquired for a Railway Project – List of persons displaced in
consequence of the project undertaken by the Railways –
Recommendation of the appellant’s case for appointment in service
in terms of policy circular of the Railway Board dated 19th  April,
2006 offering employment to displaced persons – Writ petition filed
by the appellant before the High Court seeking benefit of the said
circular – High Court directed that the claim of the appellant be
considered for the grant of Group ‘D’ employment – Appellant
submitted representation – Rejected – Second Writ Petition filed by
the appellant – Rejected by Single Judge – Order affirmed by the
Division Bench – On appeal, held: Initially by circular dated 1st
January, 1983, the Railway Board dealt with appointment to Group
‘C’ and ‘D’ posts in the Railways, of members of families displaced
as a result of the acquisition of land for the establishment of projects
– Said Policy circular was specifically adverted to in the subsequent
circular dated 19th  April, 2006– As per the subsequent circular the
Railway Board decided that the policy to offer employment to
displaced persons should not cover displaced persons where only
a strip of land had been acquired – At the same time, it also stipulated
that the claim can be considered for appointment against a Group
‘D’ post where a “large area, house or substantial livelihood has
been taken away/snapped in the process” – Case of the appellant
fell within the ambit of paragraph 2 of the circular dated 19th April,
2006 – Entire house of the appellant was demolished – Rejection of
the appellant’s claim was contrary to the terms of the binding policy
circular formulated by the Union of India in the Ministry of Railways
– Undoubtedly, the grant of appointment to persons displaced as a
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 1153
1153
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  5 S.C.R.
result of acquisition is a matter which is within the purview of the
policy discretion – No mandamus can lie in the absence of a policy
– However, where a policy has been laid down by the Union
government as in the present case, the terms of the policy can be
enforced – Impugned judgment set aside – Appellant’s claim for
appointment to a Group ‘D’ post be implemented within a period of
two months from today by granting an age relaxation, if required.
Father of the appellant constructed a residential house. The
land over which the house was constructed was acquired for the
Ara-Sasaram Railway Project. Name of the appellant’s father
occurred in a list of the persons displaced in consequence of the
project undertaken by the Railways. Appellant’s case was
recommended for appointment in service in terms of policy
circular of the Railway Board dated 19th  April 2006. After the
appellant’s father died, writ petition was filed by the appellant
before the High Court seeking benefit of the said circular. The
High Court directed the claim of the appellant to be considered
for the grant of Group ‘D’ employment. Appellant submitted
representation, which was rejected. Second writ petition filed by
the appellant was rejected by the Single Judge. Order affirmed
by the Division Bench. Hence, the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The policy circular dated 1 January 1983 was
specifically adverted to in the subsequent circular dated 19 April
2006. The subsequent circular stipulates that the Railway Board
had decided that the policy to offer employment to displaced
persons should not cover displaced persons where only a strip of
land had been acquired. At the same time, it stipulated that the
claim can be considered for appointment against a Group ‘D’ post
where a “large area, house or substantial livelihood has been
taken away/snapped in the process”. The case of the appellant
fell within the ambit of paragraph 2 of the circular dated 19 April
2006. In rejecting the application of the appellant, the ground
which weighed with the Railway Authorities was that only a strip
of land belonging to the appellant had been acquired.  This is not
a correct reading of the circular. The circula

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.