LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a person whose entire house was demolished for a railway project is entitled to a Group ‘D’ job under the Railway Board’s policy, even if only a small piece of land was acquired.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Anil Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.
Judgment Date: 22 February 2019
Date of the Judgment: 22 February 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 148
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and Navin Sinha, J.
Can a government policy be ignored when it comes to providing jobs to those displaced by infrastructure projects? The Supreme Court, in this case, addressed whether the Indian Railways could deny employment to a person whose entire house was demolished for a railway project, simply because the land acquired was a small strip. The Court emphasized that the policy must be enforced, ensuring social justice for those affected by such projects. This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to government policies designed for social welfare. The judgment was authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and the bench comprised of Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and Navin Sinha, J.
Case Background
The appellant’s father, Lalan Pandey, owned a two-storied house with a partial third floor on Plot No. 1844 in Ara, Bihar. This property was acquired in 2006 for the Ara-Sasaram Railway Project. On 7 June 2008, the Collector of Bhojpur, Ara, listed Lalan Pandey as a person whose residential house had been fully demolished due to the project. Following this, on 8 August 2008, the Executive Engineer of East Central Railway recommended Lalan Pandey for employment, citing a Railway Board policy circular dated 19 April 2006. Despite this, Lalan Pandey’s request for employment was not processed. After his death on 15 May 2011, his son, the appellant, Anil Kumar, pursued the matter, eventually leading to this Supreme Court appeal.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006 | Land acquired for the Ara-Sasaram Railway Project, including Lalan Pandey’s property. |
| 7 June 2008 | Collector Bhojpur, Ara, listed Lalan Pandey as a person whose house was fully demolished. |
| 8 August 2008 | Executive Engineer, East Central Railway, recommended Lalan Pandey for employment. |
| 15 May 2011 | Lalan Pandey passed away. |
| 11 December 2012 | High Court directed the General Manager, East Central Railways, to consider the appellant’s claim for Group ‘D’ employment within three months. |
| 20 February 2013 | The appellant’s representation was rejected by the Railway Authorities. |
| 31 August 2016 | The appellant’s writ petition challenging the rejection was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court. |
| 3 January 2018 | The Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the Single Judge’s decision. |
| 22 February 2019 | Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the Railways to provide the appellant with a Group ‘D’ post within two months. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, the High Court directed the Railways to consider the appellant’s claim for a Group ‘D’ job. However, the Railways rejected this claim, stating that only a small piece of land was acquired and that the policy did not apply to such cases. The appellant then filed a second writ petition, which was dismissed by a single judge and later upheld by a division bench of the High Court. These decisions were based on the interpretation that the policy circular did not apply to cases where only a small strip of land was acquired, even if a house was completely demolished. The High Court also noted that no employment had been provided in any case for the Ara-Sasaram Railway project.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around two key policy circulars issued by the Railway Board:
✓ Circular dated 1 January 1983: This circular addressed the appointment of family members of those displaced by land acquisition for railway projects to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts. It provided guidelines for considering applications from displaced persons, their children, or spouses for employment in the Railways.
✓ Circular dated 19 April 2006: This circular revisited the earlier guidelines. It stated that employment should not be offered where only a strip of land was acquired. However, it also stated that employment could be considered for Group ‘D’ posts where a large area, house, or substantial livelihood was taken away. The relevant portion of the circular states:
“no cognizance by way of offering employment to displaced persons should be given wherein only a strip of land (viz., for construction of a line) has been acquired but the same can be considered in Group D posts only wherein large area, house or substantial livelihood has been taken away/snapped in the process.”
Arguments
Arguments of the Appellant:
- The appellant argued that his father’s entire house was demolished for the railway project, which qualifies him for employment under the 19 April 2006 circular.
- He contended that the circular should be interpreted disjunctively, meaning that if either a large area, house, or substantial livelihood was taken away, the person would be eligible for employment.
- The appellant emphasized that the Executive Engineer’s letter of 8 August 2008 acknowledged that his father was completely displaced and his livelihood had suffered.
- The appellant highlighted that the Railways did not deny the averments in the writ petition that the Collector had recommended his father’s name for employment.
Arguments of the Respondents (Railways):
- The Railways argued that the 19 April 2006 circular should be read in conjunction with the 1 January 1983 circular.
- They contended that the policy was not intended to cover cases where only a small strip of land was acquired, even if a house was demolished.
- The Railways also stated that past cases where recruitments were in process or commitments were made should only be considered for Group ‘D’ posts.
- The Railways argued that no employment had been provided in any case for the Ara-Sasaram Railway project.
- The Railways further argued that an exception from the Ministry of Railways is required for the application to be considered for appointment.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions of Appellant | Sub-Submissions of Respondent |
|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to Employment |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue was:
✓ Whether the appellant was entitled to a Group ‘D’ job under the Railway Board’s policy circular dated 19 April 2006, given that his entire house was demolished, even though only a small piece of land was acquired.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellant was entitled to a Group ‘D’ job under the Railway Board’s policy circular dated 19 April 2006, given that his entire house was demolished, even though only a small piece of land was acquired. | Yes, the appellant was entitled to a Group ‘D’ job. | The Court held that the policy circular should be interpreted disjunctively, meaning that if either a large area, house, or substantial livelihood was taken away, the person would be eligible for employment. The entire house of the appellant was demolished, which satisfied the condition under the policy. The Court also held that the Railway authorities’ reasoning that only a strip of land had been acquired was incorrect. |
Authorities
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Railway Board Circular dated 1 January 1983 | Railway Board | Referred to and revisited by the subsequent circular dated 19 April 2006 | Appointment to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts for displaced persons. |
| Railway Board Circular dated 19 April 2006 | Railway Board | The primary policy under consideration; interpreted disjunctively | Employment to displaced persons where a large area, house, or substantial livelihood was taken away. |
Judgment
| Submission of the Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that his entire house was demolished | The Court agreed that the demolition of the entire house qualified him for employment under the policy. |
| Appellant’s submission that the policy should be interpreted disjunctively | The Court accepted this interpretation, stating that the policy applied if a large area, house, or substantial livelihood was taken away. |
| Railways’ submission that the policy does not apply to small land acquisitions | The Court rejected this argument, stating that it was not a correct reading of the circular. |
| Railways’ submission that past cases should only be considered for Group D posts | The Court did not specifically address this point, but it directed the Railways to provide a Group D post to the appellant. |
| Railways’ submission that an exception from the Ministry of Railways is required | The Court rejected this submission as it would result in a pick and choose approach, contrary to the policy circular. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
✓ The Railway Board Circular dated 1 January 1983 was referred to as the basis for the subsequent policy but was not directly applied.
✓ The Railway Board Circular dated 19 April 2006 was the main authority, which was interpreted disjunctively by the Court to benefit the appellant.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of social justice and the need to implement government policies meant for the welfare of displaced persons. The Court noted that the policy circular was a substantive attempt to enhance social welfare, and its failure to implement it resulted in a denial of justice. The Court also highlighted that the rejection of the appellant’s claim was based on extraneous and irrelevant considerations, and that the policy should be interpreted to benefit those who have lost their homes due to government projects.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Social Justice | 40% |
| Policy Implementation | 30% |
| Irrelevant Considerations | 20% |
| Interpretation of Policy | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered the Railways’ interpretation of the policy as incorrect and emphasized that the policy should be interpreted to benefit those who have lost their homes due to government projects. The Court rejected the Railways’ argument that an exception was required from the Ministry of Railways, stating that it would result in a pick and choose approach, contrary to the policy circular.
The Court stated: “The circular contemplates that when a large area, house or substantial livelihood have been taken away, the case for providing alternative employment in a Group ‘D’ post would be considered. Those phrases are disjunctive.”
The Court also stated: “The rejection of the claim of the Appellant was for extraneous reasons and based on irrelevant considerations. Government in the Ministry of Railways formulated a policy. The failure of implementation results in a failure of social justice.”
The Court further noted: “The policy circulars were substantive attempts to enhance social welfare. Denial of benefits to the appellant has led to a long and tortuous road to justice.”
Key Takeaways
- Government policies designed for social welfare must be implemented effectively.
- Policy circulars should be interpreted in a manner that benefits those they are intended to protect.
- Displaced persons whose entire houses are demolished for government projects are eligible for employment under relevant policies, even if only a small piece of land was acquired.
- The Court emphasized the importance of social justice and the need to avoid extraneous considerations when implementing welfare policies.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Railways to implement the claim of the appellant for appointment to a Group ‘D’ post within two months, granting an age relaxation if required.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that government policies designed for social welfare must be implemented effectively, and policy circulars should be interpreted in a manner that benefits those they are intended to protect. The Supreme Court clarified that the Railway Board’s policy circular dated 19 April 2006 should be interpreted disjunctively, meaning that if either a large area, house, or substantial livelihood was taken away, the person would be eligible for employment. This interpretation ensures that those who have lost their homes due to government projects are not denied the benefits of the policy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, Anil Kumar, emphasizing that the Railways must adhere to its own policies designed to provide employment to those displaced by land acquisition for railway projects. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of social justice and the need for the government to implement welfare policies effectively, ensuring that those who have lost their homes are not denied the benefits they are entitled to.
Category
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Categories:
- Railway Employment
- Displaced Persons
- Policy Implementation
Parent Category: Railway Board Circulars
Child Category:
- Circular dated 19 April 2006
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Anil Kumar vs. Union of India case?
A: The main issue was whether a person whose entire house was demolished for a railway project is entitled to a Group ‘D’ job under the Railway Board’s policy, even if only a small piece of land was acquired.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court ruled that the person was entitled to a Group ‘D’ job, emphasizing that the policy should be interpreted disjunctively, meaning that if either a large area, house, or substantial livelihood was taken away, the person would be eligible for employment.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment highlights the importance of implementing government policies designed for social welfare effectively and interpreting them in a manner that benefits those they are intended to protect. It also ensures that displaced persons who have lost their homes due to government projects are not denied the benefits they are entitled to.
Q: What does “disjunctive interpretation” mean in this context?
A: Disjunctive interpretation means that the policy applies if any one of the conditions (large area, house, or substantial livelihood) is met. In this case, the Court held that the demolition of the entire house was sufficient to qualify for employment, even if only a small piece of land was acquired.
Q: What did the Supreme Court direct the Railways to do?
A: The Supreme Court directed the Railways to provide the appellant with a Group ‘D’ post within two months, granting an age relaxation if required.
Source: Anil Kumar vs. Union of India