2025:JHHC:33730 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S). No. 5536 of 2019 ------- Mannu Raut, son of late Dhaneshwar Raut, resident of Rampur, Punsiya, P.O. & P.S. Malhara and District Deoghar, Jharkhand. ………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O. and P.S. Malhara, District Deoghar. 3. District Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar, P.O. and P.S. Malhara, District Deoghar. 4. Eastern Railway, through the General Manager, having its Corporate Office at 17, Netaji Subhas Road, Fairlie Place, Kolkata and its Division Office at Asansol, West Bengal. ……….. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : Mr. Durga Ch. Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Binit Chandra, AC to AAG-III For the UoI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGC ---- 07/ 11.11.2025 The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the 4th respondent to provide employment to the unemployed dependent family members of the petitioner under the Scheme through which others have been granted employment whose lands have been acquired but the same has been denied in the case present petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that dispute involved in the instant writ application is due to the lethargic approach of the respondents by not providing employment in lieu of the land acquisition proceeding being Land Acquisition Case No. 33 of 2001- 02 of which land had already been acquired way back for Deoghar- Dumka Railway Project and the award was made in favour of the grandfather of the petitioner and other claimants from the same family and payment of compensation has already been made to the grandfather of the petitioner and other claimants. 2025:JHHC:33730 2 3. Learned counsel further submits that land under Jamabandi No. 4, Khata Nos. 98, 93, 67, 65, 66, 61, 54 comprising of 7.72 acres of land in Mouza Rampur, District Deoghar is the ancestral property of the petitioner. It is further submitted that subsequent to the initiation of Land Acquisition Case No. 33 of 2001-02, a notice has been issued in the name of the grandfather of petitioner namely, Jagdish Raut and Yugal Raut (brother of Jagdish Raut) dated 23.08.2002, whereby the claimants were asked to appear before the respondent-authorities and state their claim to the acquired land. The father of the petitioner submitted representation for giving employment to one of his family members under the Land Loser Scheme but no decision has been taken on the same. Learned counsel further argues that other family members of the petitioners have already given No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner, hence, the respondents be directed to give employment to the petitioner since entire family is dependent upon the earnings of this petitioner. 4. From the records it appears that the land of the petitioner was acquired by the respondent-Railway way back in the year 2001 and as per the respondents, the petitioner was only 5 years of age at the relevant time and no other person has claimed employment at that time. Due to passage of time several guidelines have been issued by the respondent-Railway based upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Shankar Prasad Deep [S.L.P.(C). No. 696-710 of 2011] wherein it has been held that applicants would be required to fulfil all other prescriptions, including educational qualifications, appearing in the written test, minimum age requirements and medical fitness. 5. The concerned Railway while issuing the guidelines have also considered and referred the order passed by the Madras High Court in W.P.(S). No. 28805-28808 of 2017 (J. Srinivasan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.), wherein the Hon’ble Court has held as under: 2025:JHHC:33730 3 “The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Southern Railways brought to the notice of this Court that the Circular issued by the Railways providing priority to the land losers was withdrawn by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways in proceedings dated 11.11.2019. This being the factum, now at this length of time more so, after a lapse of seventeen years from the date of acquisition, the claim of the petitioners for appointment in Southern Railway cannot be considered.” 6. The petitioner has strenuously relied upon the judgment passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, which has relied upon several circulars and judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and gave relief of appointment. However, the facts in the said case is that notification dated 09.01.2008 was issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 in public interest to acquire land for construction of Digha-Sonpur-rail-cum-road bridge. The land of the applicant was acquired with assurance to provide Group-D employment in Railway in accordance with the Railway Board Policy for appointment to railways to the members of displaced families as a result of acquisition of land for establishment of the project. 7. From this very fact it is clear that the petitioner of that case immediately knocked the door pursuant to the notification dated 09.01.2008. However, in the instant case acquisition was made in the year 2001 and the Writ Application has been filed in the year 2019. No document, what so ever, has been produced or annexed in the Writ Application indicating therein that how the petitioner would be getting right when he was only 5 years of age at the time of acquisition of land. 8. This Court is of the considered view, even admitting that the respondents were duty bound to give preference in employment, this does not mean that a child in a mother’s womb will get a right of appointment after getting majority. It is not a case of the petitioner that his forefathers have requested the respondents to give employment to their successors and/or the forefathers were denied employment. Facts remains, it is only the petitioner who came before this Court in the year 2019 to get employment for land acquired in 2001. 2025:JHHC:33730 4 9. As such, this Court is not inclined to give relief to the petitioner for appointment. It has been informed that so far as compensation for acquisition of land is concerned; the same has been paid to the respective land losers. 10. During course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that similarly situated persons have been granted employment and referred to para-11 of his writ application. By going through para-11 of the writ application, it appears that a vague statement has been made that others have been granted appointment and there is no specific names has been mentioned as to whom employment has been given under the Land Losers Scheme. On the one hand, the said para-11 has been denied at para-10 in the counter- affidavit dated 26.09.2025. 11. Before parting, it is also necessary to indicate that consideration of appointment and giving appointment are two different things. The petitioner claims to be displaced person and land loser; however, not even in a single paragraph it has been stated that his forefathers, who were land losers, have raised any demand for appointment. Therefore, even ignoring the guidelines given by the Railway to its Offices for considering the employment, in the instant case, no relief can be granted to the petitioner for the reasons stated herein above. 12. Accordingly, the instant application stands dismissed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 11th November, 2025 Kunal Uploaded on 22 /11 /2025