Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 495 (PAT)

Manju Singh @ Manju Devi v. Union of India

2012-03-23

BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA, R.M.DOSHIT

body2012
ORDER With the consent of the learned advocates, the Appeal is heard and is decided today. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 28th April 2011 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 7918 of 2006, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 3. The appellant-writ petitioner is a resident of Village – Nasibuchak, P.O. – Fatuha, District – Patna. She was the owner of the agricultural lands bearing Survey Plot No. 1401 of Khata No. 211; Plot No. 1405 of Khata No. 62; and Survey Plot No. 1445 of Khata No. 100 admeasuring 0.49 acres. The said land was acquired by the State Government on 21st July 1990 for the purpose of the East Central Railway (hereinafter referred to as “the Railway”) for expansion of Fatuha Railway Station. It is the claim of the appellant that her entire land, the only livelihood, was acquired under the aforesaid acquisition. At the relevant time, the Railway had assured that those persons whose land was acquired under the said acquisition, at least one member of the family will be offered employment. As no member of the appellant’s family was offered employment in the Railway, the appellant approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in CWJC No. 7918 of 2006. 4. The petition was contested by the Railway. The Railway filed the counter affidavit. The Railway conceded that the Railway did assure employment to the persons whose land had been acquired for development of the freight terminal facilities at Fatuha Railway Station. Such employment was assured in respect of the families which were displaced due to the said acquisition or whose livelihood had been materially affected by the said acquisition. A list of the displaced persons was prepared by the District Magistrate, Patna. The name of the appellant did not appear in the said list. The appellant was, therefore, not offered employment. 5. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of delay and laches. Therefore, this Appeal. 6. As recorded hereinabove, the Railway did agree to offer employment to one member of the family which was displaced or whose livelihood had been materially affected on account of the aforesaid acquisition. It is the specific case of the appellant that her entire land, the only livelihood, had been acquired in the aforesaid acquisition. Therefore, this Appeal. 6. As recorded hereinabove, the Railway did agree to offer employment to one member of the family which was displaced or whose livelihood had been materially affected on account of the aforesaid acquisition. It is the specific case of the appellant that her entire land, the only livelihood, had been acquired in the aforesaid acquisition. One member of the appellant’s family was, therefore, entitled to employment. The aforesaid specific assertion has not been denied by the Railway. In absence of specific denial, we are constrained to hold that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the assurance given by the Railway. The Railway could not have refused employment to the member of her family, her husband, on the ground that her name did not appear in the list of the displaced persons prepared by the District Magistrate. As the appellant is deprived of her only livelihood, in view of the assurance given by the Railway, the Railway is duty bound to offer employment to her husband, a member of her family. The delay or laches should not defeat the cause of action. The Railway is bound by the solemn assurance given by it. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Appeal. The impugned order dated 28th April 2011 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 7918 of 2006 is set aside. CWJC No. 7918 of 2006 is allowed. The respondents-East Central Railway; particularly the respondent nos. 2, 4 and 6, are directed to offer suitable employment to Ashok Kumar Singh, the husband of the appellant, as early as possible but not later than 31st May 2012. Parties shall bear their own costs. The registry will send copy of this order to the respondent nos. 2, 4 and 6 forthwith. ?