JUDGMENT : Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner by filing this writ petition seeks following reliefs:- “(i) That this writ petition is being filed for issuance of writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order/orders, direction/directions commanding respondents particularly the Railways authorities considering to grant petitioner’s appointment as per her educational qualification to Group-‘C’ or Group-D post in the East Central Railway (E.C.R. in short) on a ground of acquisition of her land in year 2005-2006 project for construction of rail line on route of Neura Daniyama broad gauge duly notified in Govt. gazzettee bearing No. 12/05 dated 3.01.2006 1911. (ii) Further to issue direction to respondent authorities giving any relief or reliefs to the petitioner for which she may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a lady and she has got three minor children. She owned small piece of land measuring.12 acre situated in Village Gawaspur, P.S. Gaurichak, Patna. The husband of the petitioner died on 04.06.2004. The land of the petitioner owned by joint family has been acquired by Railway by issuing notification in Government Gazette bearing No.12/05 on 03.01.2006 vide Land Acquisition Case No.10/2005-2006. Rs. 5,26,687.92/- was paid to the petitioner through a cheque drawn on Punjab National Bank dated 09.01.2008 but the petitioner filed petition for payment of reasonable compensation for acquisition of the land at the market rate and filed petition before the District Magistrate. It is submitted that the Ministry of Railway, Government of India acquired the land of the petitioner for laying out Neura Daniyama Broad Gauge and it has also been decided that one person of a family either the landlord or his son, wife or widow would be given employment in the Railway in either Group-C or Group-D as per his/her qualification after acquisition of the land but the Railway authority did not provide any job to the petitioner who is a widow. 4. The respondents no.1 to 5, the Railway officials, filed counter affidavit. The State, respondents no.7 and 8 also filed counter affidavit. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents, Indian Railway, submits that the petitioner filed this writ petition for providing job in Railway for acquisition of her land bearing Khata No.469, Khesra No.2133 which was acquired for construction of Neura Daniyama new rail line project on 03.01.2006. The State, respondents no.7 and 8 also filed counter affidavit. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents, Indian Railway, submits that the petitioner filed this writ petition for providing job in Railway for acquisition of her land bearing Khata No.469, Khesra No.2133 which was acquired for construction of Neura Daniyama new rail line project on 03.01.2006. The acquired piece of land is situated in Village Dawatpur Jesia, District Patna. The land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 2005-2006 and the petitioner filed this writ petition in the year 2015. The petitioner never filed any representation before any concerned authority and after more than ten years from the date of acquisition of her land, the petitioner filed this writ petition. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and petitioner should have moved before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Mr. Ashok Keshri, the learned senior counsel for the Indian Railway further submits that the Indian Railway did not issue any guideline for providing employment for acquisition of land for completion of the project Neura Daniyama new rail line. The petitioner has got no right to claim employment by virtue of acquisition of land. There is no fundamental right to get employment for acquisition of the land and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 has held that in lieu of acquisition of land, a person has got no fundamental right to claim employment for acquisition of land. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Butu Prasad Kumbhar v. SAIL, 1995 supplement (2) SCC 225 has held that if there is no scheme for providing job, there cannot be any consideration to provide employment to the person whose land has been acquired. Mr. Ashok Keshri further placed his reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in CWJC No.23015 of 2011 and L.P.A. No.399 of 2012 (Surya Bhushan Kumar Vs. The Union of India) that a person whose land has been acquired has got statutory right to receive compensation only and there is no vested right in the person simultaneously to seek other modes of rehabilitation much less employment as a matter of right. The Union of India) that a person whose land has been acquired has got statutory right to receive compensation only and there is no vested right in the person simultaneously to seek other modes of rehabilitation much less employment as a matter of right. The Patna High Court has also held in LPA No.1929 of 2016 and CWJC No.774 of 2018 that providing employment is not a matter of right but the matter of policy in land acquisition case. The employment cannot be claimed where no policy is provided for providing employment on acquisition of land from a landlord/tenant besides grant of compensation. It is further submitted that land acquired for Sonepur Ganga Bridge there was a notification by the Railway Board for providing job of one member of the family but for scheme Neura Daniyama rail line, there is no policy and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any employment. 6. On consideration of the facts and submissions of both sides, the only question arises whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner has got right to get employment in Group-C or Group-D of Indian Railway in lieu of acquisition of her land although petitioner has already received compensation for acquisition of her land in the year 2006 itself? It is apparent from the facts that the land of the petitioner was acquired for laying the railway track from Neura to Daniyama and in this regard a notification was issued. The land of the petitioner was acquired vide Land Acquisition Case No.10/2005-2006 and the petitioner got compensation of Rs.5,26,687.92/- on 09.01.2008 but the petitioner never raised any objection nor filed any petition before the authority concerned for providing her job. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that for construction of Digha Sonepur Rail Bridge, the Indian Railway has taken policy decision to provide employment to the landlord or his/her one dependent and the Railway cannot deny employment to the petitioner on the ground that there is no such policy decision for providing job to the landlord whose lands have been acquired for completion of Neura Daniyama rail line and this is also discriminatory but it is admitted fact that there is no policy decision of Indian Railway to provide employment to the landlord or his/her one dependent for acquisition of land of Neura Daniyama project. In absence of such policy, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot claim as a matter or right employment in lieu of acquisition of her land besides getting monetary compensation for acquisition of her land at the market rate. A Division Bench of this Court in CWJC No.774 of 2018 and LPA No.1929 of 2016 has also held that in absence of policy for providing employment to a landlord or his/her dependent in lieu of acquisition of his land for construction or laying railway track, the landlord cannot claim as a matter of right for providing a job. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has also held that the petitioner has got no fundamental right to claim job in lieu of acquisition of his land for the purpose of completion of project besides the compensation for acquisition of the land. 7. Having considered the facts aforesaid, I find that besides the fact that the petitioner moved this court after long delay of more than ten years from the date of acquisition of her land without any plausible explanation, the petitioner has got no right to claim employment in lieu of acquisition of her land besides getting the monetary compensation at the market rate for such acquisition in absence of any such policy of the Indian Railways. 8. In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.