Judgment :- P.K. MISRA, J. The Union of India and other Officials have filed this writ petition against the order dt.03.02.99 in O.A. No.291 of 1997 directing that the application of the present respondent No.2 for appointment as per the guideline of Railway Board dt.31.12.1982/01.01.1983 should be considered. 2. The following facts are not disputed:- (a) For extension of Railway track, certain lands were acquired. (b) The house property to an extent of 3.5 cents of land belonging to the mother of the present respondent No.2 has also been acquired. (c) An application had been filed by the mother of the present respondent No.2 for giving employment to the respondent No.2 in accordance with the scheme prepared by the Railway Authorities. Similar application has subsequently been filed by the respondent No.2. Since such application was rejected, the present respondent No.2 filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking for aforesaid direction. The Tribunal, on consideration of facts, has given direction which has already been indicated above. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act has already been paid to the person affected, the benefit of scheme regarding employment cannot be extended to the person or the family member of such person. To appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is necessary to refer to the scheme prepared by the Railway Authorities. The scheme is extracted as follows:- "The zonal Railways and Production Units and also project authorities may consider applications received from persons displaced on account of large-scale acquisition of land for projects on the Railways for employment of the displaced person, or his son/daughter or wife for employment in Group 'C' or Group 'D' posts in their organisation including engagement of casual labour and give them preferential treatment for such employment, subject to the following conditions:- 1. The individual conserned should have been displaced himself or he should be the son/daughter/ward/wife of a person displaced from land on account of acquisition of the land by the Railways for the Project. 2. Only one job on such preferential treatment should be offered to one family. 3. This dispensation should be limited to recruitments made from outside in direct recruitment categories and to the first recruitment or within a period of two years after the acquisition of the land, whichever is later. 4. 2. Only one job on such preferential treatment should be offered to one family. 3. This dispensation should be limited to recruitments made from outside in direct recruitment categories and to the first recruitment or within a period of two years after the acquisition of the land, whichever is later. 4. It must also be ensured that the displaced person did not derive any benefit through the State Government in the form of alternative cultivable land etc. 5. The person concerned should fulfill the qualifications for the post in question and also be found suitable by the appropriate recruitment committees. In the case of Group 'C' posts for which recruitment is made through the Railway Service Commission, the Chairman or the Member of the Railway Service Commission should be associated in the recruitment." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed particular reliance on condition No.4 of the aforesaid scheme and stated that since the affected person has received the benefit in the form of compensation, no employment can be given. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not acceptable at all. In the scheme, it is nowhere provided that the person who has received compensation under the Land Acquisition Act cannot avail of this benefit. On the other hand, the subsequent clarification issued by the Union of India by letter dt.22.3.1985 would negative the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. In the aforesaid letter, the particular query has been made to the following effect:- " (iii) Where, in addition to compensation, any other benefit has been given by the State Government or in cases where alternative cultivable land is given to the persons, whether they will not be entitled to any such preferential treatment (in the matter of employment on Railway's)." Clarification was given to the following effect:- " No appointment should be given if alternative cultivable land had been allotted by State Government. As regards other benefits, the nature of the benefit should be taken into account in applying the guidelines contained in this Ministry's letters of even number dated 1.1.83 and 9.6.83." 6. This itself makes it clear that in addition to the compensation given, if other benefit is given by the State Government or alternative land is provided to the person, the question of giving employment is not applicable. This itself makes it clear that in addition to the compensation given, if other benefit is given by the State Government or alternative land is provided to the person, the question of giving employment is not applicable. Hence the main contention raise by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not sustainable. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that since only 3.5 cents of land has been acquired, it is not sufficient. It appears that the application of the respondent No.2 was rejected only on the ground that the compensation had been paid to the mother of the respondent No.2. This objection was also not raised before the Tribunal. At any rate, the objection does not have any merit in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. It is apparent that the respondent No.2 and his mother were depending upon the income received from the renting of a shop constructed on the acquired land and they were living in another portion. Hence, it is quite obvious that the respondent No.2 and his mother had been displaced on account of the acquisition of the land. Since they had been displaced and they were depending on the income from the acquired land, the contention of the petitioners has no merit. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed the question relating to delay in making the application with regard to employment. In condition No.3, it has been indicated that the application should be made within a period of two years It appears from the records that in fact the application had been made for the first time in 1984 which was within a period of two years. Therefore, the question of limitation raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is also without any substance. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not propose to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The petitioners are directed to consider the application regarding giving preference in the matter of employment. This may be done within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected W.M.P. is also dismissed. No costs.