V.S.Sirpurkar, CJ. - (1.) This is a very unusual writ petition. Some facts are as under.
(2.) One Badal Kumar Pradhan and his son had filed original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. They pleaded in that original application that their land to the extent of 1.20 acres was acquired for the railway project. They were paid the compensation of fifty-nine thousand rupees. However, they claimed that there was a notification bearing No. Estt. Srl. No. 297/89 dated 8th December, 1989 which provided that those who have been displaced by the acquisition of land would be entitled to an employment. The railway, the present petitioner opposed this original application on various grounds but mainly on the ground that in fact there was no fresh recruitment from outsiders and the S.R.D.P.O, South-Eastern Railway, Kharagpur has already been advised to consider the appeal by the original applicant for the employment whenever there would be a recruitment from open market. The railways pointed out that they had also given such a reply by their letter dated 17th August, 1992. The Tribunal did not find favour with the defence of the railway and came to the conclusion that as per the aforementioned notification dated 8th December, 1989 the original applicant was entitled to be employed. The Tribunal also disbelieved the case pleaded that there was no recruitment in the Kharagpur Division after 1989. The Tribunal recorded its finding on the basis of an admission made by the Counsel for the railways. We would quote the Tribunal's order: "On my queries, Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the respondents stated that no notification has been made by the official respondents in pursuance of the instructions contained in para 2 of Railway Estt. Sri. No. 297/89 dated 8.12.89 and no appointment has been made till date which is unbelievable. On the face of the written reply it is found that the respondents made evasive statement regarding recruitment in the railways. Finally learned Counsel for the respondents admitted that in the meantime there had been some recruitments in the South-Eastern Railway, Kharagpur Division but the case of the applicants was not considered. In view of the said admitted fact, I find that such recruitments have been made after giving assurance to the applicant regarding appointment on compassionate ground vide letter dated 17.8.92 and thereby the department is duty-bound to consider the case of the applicant No. 2 by relaxing his age."
(3.) This judgment of the Tribunal is dated 29th July, 1999. In that the railways had successfully avoided to appoint the original applicant for good long seven years in spite of their assurance in 1992. To add to this the railway never challenged this order nor did it in any manner contradict the admission made by their Counsel regarding the filling up of Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts in South-Eastern Railway and more particularly the Kharagpur Division. The original applicant, therefore, filed a contempt application. That contempt application was entertained by the Tribunal and the petitioner/ railways was directed to give its reply. The railway pointed out that in pursuance of the direction of the Tribunal, the General Manager had considered the matter afresh and had found that since there was no fresh recruitment from a particular sector in Kharagpur Division, there was no question of giving appointment to the original applicant. The railways seem to have passed the following order: "In obedience to the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal, Calcutta, I, the General Manager, S.-E. Railway (respondent No. 1) have examined the case of applicants keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Tribunal and in reference to the policy guidelines laid down by the Railway Board. Applicant has claimed employment on the basis of the Estt. Srl. No. 297/89, which, in effect, is not a notification for the recruitment. In fact, Estt. Srl. No. 297/89 lays down the procedure for extending the employment assistance to an eligible member of the family, whose land has been acquired. As per paper available in this office, I find that no open market recruitment has been made to meet up requirement of staff in the Tamluk-Digha Project. In fact, no. permanent posts have been created against this project. The scanty requirement of casual labour was met by diverting the existing project casual labour from other project. For this reason the claim of the applicant could not be considered. However, his case would be considered, along with other similarly placed persons, as and when the first recruitment is done to fill up the vacancies of the Tamiuk-Digha section from amongst the eligible family members of the land oustees. This will be subject to his fulfilling the prescribed criteria for direct recruitment from open market.";