IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Suvra Ghosh

And

The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay

CPAN 1475 of 2023

in

WPCT 101 of 2023

Kalam Ali Mondal & Ors.

Vs.

Vidya Bhusan & Ors.

+

CPAN 1481 of 2023

in

WPCT 103 of 2023

Sk. Gulam Hossain & Ors.

Vs.

Sanjay Kumar Mohanty & Ors.

+

CPAN 1564 of 2023

in

WPCT 98 of 2023

Sudarshan Mal & Ors.

Vs.

Sanjay Kumar Mohanty & Anr.

+

CPAN 1480 of 2023

in

WPCT 99 of 2023

Debi Prasad Ruidas & Ors.

Vs.

Vidya Bhusan & Ors.

P a g e | 2

For the Applicants : Mr. Surajit Samanta

: Ms. Sohini Samanta

For the alleged contemnors : Mr. Souvik Nandy

: Mr. Subrata Santra

Heard on : 06/05/2026

Judgment on : 13/05/2026

Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-

1. The four contempt applications (mentioned above) connected with

the respective writ petitions (mentioned above), are filed alleging

intentional and willful violation of the order dated June 19, 2023

and August 09, 2023 in the said writ petitions, passed by the

Bench comprising Justice V.M. Velumani and Justice Rai

Chattopadhyay. These contempt applications have been assigned

to this Bench vide order of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice dated

April 23, 2024. Hence, these have been heard analogously and are

disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. Relevant portion of the order dated June 19, 2023 be quoted

hereinbelow, for the benefit of discussion:-

“The respondents are directed to comply with the

order dated 16.3.2020 by adopting identical

process as adopted for the petitioner in WPCT 74 of

2016 while considering the claim of the petitioners

and pass orders within four months from today. If

the respondents fail to comply with the order, it is

open to the petitioners to mention before the

Tribunal for reopening the contempt petitions for

not complying with the order passed by the

Tribunal dated 16.3.2020.

With the aforesaid direction, all the writ petitions

are allowed.”

P a g e | 3

3. The writ petitions as above arose challenging the orders of the

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Kolkata Bench, dated April

18, 2023 and May 09, 2023, by dint of which the CAT Kolkata

Bench has dismissed contempt petitions filed by the present

applicants. Let the factual background as relevant to discuss in

these contempt applications be narrated in a nutshell.

4. The petitioners are land losers who agreed for acquisition of their

land for Nandigram Deshapran Project and Arambag Bowaichandi

Railway Project on the assurance given that one person of their

family will be given employment by the respondent Railway

authorities. When the respondents failed to honour their

assurance and failed to give appointment to any one of the family

members of land losers, they approached the Tribunal by filing

original applications and obtained orders. This Court also passed

various orders for considering the persons from the family of the

land losers for appointment in the Railways. This Court by order

dated February 08, 2019 in WPCT No.74 of 2016 passed the

following directions :-

“21. It is evident from the materials-on-record

that even land losers, who were 47 years old,

have been offered appointment. The respondent

no.1 was 46 years old on the date he approached

the tribunal for the first time. When his claim was

rejected by the first order dated July 15, 2014,

age-bar was not cited as a ground therefor. What

we find is that there were absence of certain

documents/papers for which the claim of the

respondent no.1 could not be put up before the

screening committee for screening. If indeed that

was the reason for regretting his prayer, the

petitioners ought to have asked the respondent

no.1 to supply the documents, which were not

there in the file, instead of closing his right to

claim appointment. We, therefore, propose to

pass the following further directions to close the

breach:

P a g e | 4

(i) within a period of seven days from date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment and order,

the Chief Personnel Officer shall intimate the

respondent no.1, which of the documents are

required from his end for ensuring placement

of his claim before the screening committee;

(ii) within a month of receipt of such intimation,

the respondent no.1 shall produce the

necessary documents/papers before the

Chief Personnel Officer and upon receipt of

such documents/papers the claim of the

respondent no.1 shall be placed before the

screening committee for an appropriate

decision;

(iii) bearing in mind the fact that other land losers

have been offered appointment even upon

attaining 47 years of age, we hope and trust

that the screening committee shall not cite

age-bar as a ground for not considering the

claim of the respondent no.1 and if a power

of relaxation is indeed available to consider

invocation of such power if the merits of the

case so warrants; and

(iv) the entire exercise shall be completed as

early as possible but not beyond June 30,

2019.”

5. The petitioners herein and others filed separate Original

Applications before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, considering the

judgement dated February 08, 2019 in WPCT 74 of 2016, passed

the following order dated March 16, 2020 :-

“10. In view of the direction of the Hon’ble High

Court supra, and our revelations as indicated

above, we feel it appropriate in the interest of

justice, to direct the respondents to undertake an

identical exercise as directed by the Hon’ble

High Court in WPCT 74 of 2016 and issue

appropriate order in regard to the present

applicants within 4 months.”

6. The petitioners herein and others filed various contempt petitions

before the Tribunal alleging non-compliance of the order of the

Tribunal dated March 16, 2020. The Tribunal by orders dated

April 18, 2023 and May 09, 2023 dismissed the contempt petitions

P a g e | 5

holding that the respondents have substantially complied with the

order dated March 16, 2020. Against the said orders the

petitioners have filed the present writ petitions.

7. The grievance of the petitioners before the Tribunal was is that the

respondents have failed to grant age relaxation for the petitioners

and also introduced a new condition of Physical Efficiency Test

(PET). They further contended that there was no provision for PET

at any point of time before the 2019 Circular issued by the

Railways. They also contended that the Tribunal failed to consider

the grievances of the petitioners and erroneously dismissed the

contempt petitions on the ground tha t the respondents have

substantially complied with the order dated March 16, 2020.

8. Those persons, who are the petitioners/applicants in these

contempt applications are represented by Mr. Surajit Samanta,

learned advocate. The applicants’ submissions in brief are that,

the Court had directed the respondents to follow the same

procedure adopted in WPCT 74 of 2016 while considering the

petitioners’ claims and to pass appropriate orders within four

months.

9. According to the present appellants, the alleged contemnors

rejected the petitioners’ claims without following the Court’s

directions. The claims have been rejected on grounds such as

disqualification in the physical efficiency test, being overage, and

being non-matriculate. According to the applicants, these grounds

had already been disapproved by the Hon’ble Coordinate Benches

and the Railways’ challenges before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to

the same were unsuccessful too, making those decisions final and

binding.

P a g e | 6

10. According to the applicants, in the matter of appointment in the

land losers’ category, the applicable “Scheme” being RBE No.

99/2010 dated July 16, 2010 and the “Joint Procedure Order”

(JPO) dated June 03, 2011 have not spelt about any age bar, or

bar as regards requisite bare minimum educational qualification

(except the ability to read and write), so also with regard to the

physical ability. In that event while considering the respective

cases of the applicants, the alleged contemnor has committed

error. Not only that, it has acted beyond scope of the “Scheme” and

“JPO”, therefore rendering its own action as invalid. According to

the applicants, the Division Bench directed the alleged contemnor,

in orders dated June 19, 2023 and August 09, 2023, to comply

with the order dated March 16, 2020 of the CAT, Kolkata Bench by

adopting identical process as was adopted for the petitioners in

WPCT 74 of 2016. It is submitted that no restriction on the basis

of age, qualification or physical ability has been laid down, by this

Court, in WPCT 74 of 2016, in its order dated February 08, 2019.

Hence, according to the applicants, imposition of any kind of

screening test to appoint a person in the land losers’ category,

stands to be in violation of the Court orders dated June 19, 2023

and August 09, 2023.

11. The applicants relied on several relevant judgments and orders

which clearly support their case and establish their eligibility for

appointment under the land loser category. The judgments are as

follows:-

Lakshman Chandra Bhandary vs. Sunit Sharma CPAN 1258

of 2019 is a contempt petition filed in the Calcutta High Court

concerning the failure of the Railway authorities to comply with a

previous order regarding the employment of "land losers" for

Railway projects. The petition highlights the petitioners' claims of

non-compliance with directives to screen and appoint individuals

P a g e | 7

whose land was acquired. The petitioners alleged that the Railway

authorities had imposed artificial barriers, such as age and

educational qualifications, to deny appointments, despite similar

candidates being appointed under relaxed conditions. The Court

noted that 17 individuals had been appointed with relaxed

educational qualifications, and it directed that the petitioners

should be treated similarly in accordance with the order dated

February 08, 2019. As of October 2023, the Court observed that

the Railway authorities had complied with the contempt petition's

orders in relation to other similarly situated individuals.

Buddhadev Senapati vs. Union of India WPCT 88 of 2023 is a

notable order of the Calcutta High Court regarding land loser

appointments in the South Eastern Railway. The Court held that a

land loser who does not qualify in the Physical Efficiency Test

(PET) cannot be denied appointment, provided they are otherwise

medically fit for the role. The Railways submitted that candidates

who fail the PET would still be considered for appointment based

on medical tests, which are separate from the PET requirements.

Syed Monibur Rahim vs. Archan Joshi, The General Manager,

South Eastern Railway WPCT 93 of 2023 is a writ petition

linked to orders passed regarding personnel under the South

Eastern Railway. The Court has reiterated that no objection can

raised regarding ineligibility in Physical Efficiency Test and

overage. Similar position has been upheld in the orders of WPCT

119 of 2023 (dated March 26, 2025) and WPCT 121 of

2023 (dated July 28, 2025)

12. The alleged contemnor is represented by Mr. Souvik Nandy,

learned advocate. The counter argument advanced by Mr. Nandy

inter alia is that, the alleged contemnor had duly complied with

the order dated June 19, 2023 passed by the Hon’ble Division

Bench by following the identical recruitment process adopted in

P a g e | 8

WPCT 74 of 2016. The compliance was carried out in accordance

with the Railway recruitment rules applicable to the landloser

category and in line with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Union of India v. Shankar Prasad

Deep reported in (2019) 16 SCC 286. The apex Court has held

that applicants would be entitled to an age relaxation of 15 years

provided they fulfill all other prescriptions, including educational

qualifications, appearing at the written test, minimum age

requirements and medical fitness.

13. It was further contended that most of the petitioners had

participated in and qualified the Physical Efficiency Test (PET), and

since some had already received appointments, the four separate

writ petitions were not maintainable and the contempt

applications should therefore be dismissed. The respondents also

argued that the petitioners, having participated in the PET, could

not subsequently challenge the selection process after being

declared disqualified. The relied on the decision of the Supreme

Court in K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala (2006) 6 SCC

395 wherein it was held that once petitioners have participated in

the process, it is not open to them to contend that the criteria was

not proper.

14. Mr. Nandy, learned advocate also argued that the petitioners,

having participated in the PET, could not subsequently challenge

the selection process after being declared disqualified. Any

grievance arising from refusal of appointment on grounds such as

PET disqualification, overage or lack of educational qualification

would constitute a fresh cause of action, which could not be

adjudicated in contempt proceedings as the executing court lacked

jurisdiction to entertain such claims at the first instance.

P a g e | 9

15. Mr. Nandy, learned advocate in his argument has placed strong

reliance on the compliance report submitted by the alleged

contemnor dated December 14, 2023. He has submitted that, as

per decision of the Supreme Court in Shankar Prasad Deep

(supra), an applicant employed in the land losers’ category is

entitled to an age relaxation of 15 years; excepting the same the

applicant as above, would be required to fulfill all other

prescriptions including educational qualification, medical standard

etc. as per the said direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

According to Mr. Nandy learned advocate, the “Scheme”, “JPO”

and the judgment of the Supreme Court as above has categorically

fixed up the criteria for eligibility of a person for being appointed in

the land losers’ category in unequivocal terms. That, the steps

taken by the alleged contemnor in compliance of the order of this

Court dated June 19, 2023 are in due observance of the

prescriptions/guidelines of the above.

16. He says that, some of the applicants after having gone through the

similar process have already been appointed. He informs that the

present petitioners too have undertaken the tests so imposed by

the alleged contemnor in terms of the “Scheme”, “JPO” and the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Since now, after having

participated in the selection process and having been

unsuccessful, they have come to challenge the same by way of

taking out these contempt applications, he insists that those may

be considered to be unsustainable and rejected.

17. His further submission is that, in the order passed by the Hon’ble

Division Bench in WPCT 74 of 2016 dated February 08, 2019, the

Court has not enumerated any direction not to impose any

eligibility criteria for the present applicants or any other person

who claim to be appointed in the land losers’ category. Therefore,

he submits that, in accordance with the “Scheme” as well as

P a g e | 10

“JPO”, the judgment of the Supreme Court as above and the

judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in WPCT 74 of 2016

the alleged contemnor has never been forbidden to test the

minimum eligibility criteria of an applicant before appointing him

in the land losers’ category. He says that those who have been able

to succeed in the screening have already been given appointment.

The petitioners having been not successful and, therefore, not

been appointed cannot invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this

Court on the allegation that there has been willful violation of the

Court’s order by the alleged contemnor.

18. For all the reasons as above, he insists that the present contempt

applications may be dismissed.

19. In contempt jurisdiction, this Court has a very limited scope only

to go into the question whether the order of the Court has been

violated by the alleged contemnor. If yes, whether the said

violation is a result of intentional, deliberate and willful inaction of

the alleged contemnor to comply with the order.

20. The alleged contemnor in his compliance report dated December

14, 2023 has elaborately laid down as to how it has complied with

the Court’s order dated June 19, 2023.

P a g e | 11

21. The status of appointment as divulged therein, may be reproduced

below: -

WPCT 99/2023

Debi Prasad Ruidas

& Ors vs. Vidya

Bhusan & Ors

54 applicants involved

18 candidates appointed.

01 under medical

examination.

01 temporarily unfit.

18 candidates disqualified

in PET.

16 candidates disqualified

in DV

WPCT 101/2023

Kalam Ali Mondal &

Ors vs. Vidya

Bhushan & Ors

12 candidates involved

08 candidates appointed.

02 candidates disqualified

in PET.

02 candidates disqualified

in DV (handwritten note:

after giving 5 yrs

relaxation).

WPCT 103/2023

Golam Hussain &

Ors vs. Sanjay

Kumar Mohanty &

Ors

27 applicants involved

09 candidates appointed.

11 candidates disqualified

in PET.

07 candidates disqualified

in DV.

P a g e | 12

22. The alleged contemnor has produced in tabular form as to how the

directions of the Division Bench vide order dated February 08,

2019 in WPCT No. 74 of 2016 have been followed by the same

which may also be reproduced below: -

Srl

No.

Order of Hon’ble High Court in WPCT

No. 74/2016

Compliance

i)

Within a period of 7 days from date of

receipt of a copy of this judgement and

order, the Chief Personnel Officer shall

intimate the respondent No. 1, which of

the documents are required for his end

for ensuring placement of his claimed

before the screening committee.

Since the appointments papers of 93

applicants who filed CPAN No. 1475/2023

arising out of WPCT No. 101/2023, CPAN No.

1480/2023 arising out of WPCT No. 99/2023

and CPAN No. 1484/2023 arising out of WPCT

No. 103/2023 intimation to the respondent for

documents are not required, since all the

applications were available with S.E. Railway

Administration.

ii)

Within a month of receipt of such

intimation, the respondent No. 1 shall

produce the necessary

documents/papers before the Chief

Personnel Officer and upon received of

such documents/papers the claimed of

the respondent No. 1 shall be placed

before the screening committee for an

appropriate decision.

All the 93 recruitment papers where placed

before the screening committee who decided

the eligible and non-eligible candidates.

iii)

Bearing in mind the fact that other land

losers have been offer of appointment

even upon attaining 47 years of age, we

hope and trust that the screening

committee shall not cite age bar as a

ground for not considering the claimed

of the respondent No.-1 and if a power

of relaxation is indeed available to

consider invocation of such power if the

merits of the case so warrants.

In obedience to Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India order dated 14.03.2019 in the case of

UOI & Ors. Vs- Shankar Prasad Deep etc. in

civil appeal Nos. 3030-3044 of 2019 (arising

out of SLP (C) No. 696 -710 of 2011) the

relaxation of 15 years over the normal upper

age limit prescribed for different communities

have been considered. Thus UR candidates

have been 48 years of age, OBC candidates

having 51 years of age and SC & ST

candidates having 53 years of age have been

considered subject to fulfilment of other

condition. On the basis of Hon’ble apex Courts

Order one JPO was issued by this Railway

vide JPO dated 05.10.2021 to take a uniform

policy to deal with the land loser cases.

iv)

The entire exercise shall be completed

as early as possible but not beyond

June 30, 2019

The entire exercise of the order dated

19.06.2023 of WPCT No. 99/2023, 101/2023

& 103/2023 have already been complied.

23. According to the alleged contemnor, 15 years age relaxation over

the prescribed maximum community -wise upper age limit has

P a g e | 13

been allowed to the respective persons. That, as per RBE No.

31/2018, the condition of possessing minimum qualification of

matriculation has been imposed since 1S grade pay did not exist

any longer under the 7

th

Central Pay Commission and no one

could be considered for employment in Railways who were not

qualified in matriculation. The following table provided by the

alleged contemnor in the said report dated December 14, 2023

would be helpful to understand the actual scenario.

Srl

No

Description Number of candidates

01. Number of candidates involved in three WPCTs 93

02.

Number of candidates called for Document

Verification

93

03.

Number of candidates qualified in Document

Verification

68

04.

Number of candidates disqualified in Document

Verification

25 (Non Matriculation -7, Over

aged after relaxation of 15 years

-11, Both non Matriculation

and over aged -7)

05. Number of candidates called for PET 68

06. Number of candidates appeared in PET 68

07. Number of candidates qualified in PET 37

08. Number of candidates appointed 35

09. Number of candidates yet to be appointed

02 (Under Medical examination-

01 & Temporary Unfit-01)

10. Number of candidates disqualified in PET

31 disqualified in 1000 Mtrs.

run.

24. This compliance report by the alleged contemnor is challenged by

the petitioners on the ground that, imposition of minimum

qualification or physical ability test has been in violation of the

dictum of the Court. That, the alleged contemnor ought to have

followed and complied with the order of the Court as it is and

without imposing conditions as per their own whims and caprices

as alleged.

25. The order under contempt has not by itself prescribed any specific

procedure to be followed by the alleged contemnor in appointing

the applicants. It has directed that the procedure as prescribed by

P a g e | 14

the Hon’ble Division Bench in WPCT 74 of 2016 vide order dated

February 08, 2019 is to be followed.

26. On careful perusal of the said order of the Hon’ble Division Bench,

one can find that the Hon’ble Division Bench in that case has

formulated its finding and opinion that, by not providing age

relaxation, the respondent therein has committed breach and

made out certain guidelines to fill up the said breach or lacunae.

Nonetheless, it is understood from a careful perusal thereof that,

the Hon’ble Division Bench was never of the view that, blanket

appointment orders should be issued for a family member of the

land loser, irrespective of any screening of their minimum

eligibility. Age criteria is the sole factor considered by the Division

Bench in WPCT 74 of 2016, which has however been given effect to

by the alleged contemnor while considering the claims of the

petitioners for appointment.

27. As a matter of fact, the Court cannot be unmindful of the finding

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankar Prasad

Deep (supra) in which the Supreme Court categorically lays down

the entitlement of the applicant to the age relaxation only and not

with regard to any other prescription including educational

qualification and medical standards.

28. This Court is of the conside red opinion that, following the

procedure laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in WPCT

74 of 2016 vide order dated February 08, 2019 does not ipso facto

allow the alleged contemnor not to follow the guidelines or the

judicial dictation with regard to the material issues.

29. In this regard, Clause 6 of the RBE No. 99/2010 dated July 16,

2010 (as relied on by the applicants) is worth noting which reads

as follows: -

P a g e | 15

“6. General Manager of the Railway in whose jurisdiction

the land acquisition is to be undertaken, shall be responsible

for ensuring a fair and transparent selection of candidates.”

30. The requirement of a fair and transparent selection process is

embodied in the same. In such circumstances, the argument put

forth by the applicants regarding non -applicability of any

screening appears to be not acceptable. As a matter of fact,

“Screening” by a standing Screening Committee has been provided

in Clause 2 (iii) of the Joint Procedure Order dated June 03, 2011,

as relied on by the applicants.

31. It is also worth noting that the present applicants have taken part

in the structured screening process introduced by the alleged

contemnor but could not succeed. They are minority in number as

against the majority number of applicants who have been allowed

by the Court to be considered and ultimately after being successful

in the screening process have been given appointment with the

alleged contemnor.

32. Fact remains that pursuant to the order of this Court dated June

19, 2023, the alleged contemnor has duly taken up the matter for

consideration of the claim of the respective persons for being

appointed, in the land losers’ category. In the process, certain

screening methods have been applied which appears to be in terms

of the Scheme and guidelines of the Department as well as the

directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble

Division Bench of this Court. As a result, majority of the persons

who have claimed to be appointed in the land losers’ category have

crossed the hurdle and have been appointed in the said category

with the alleged contemnor. Some could not cross the hurdle and

tried their luck before this Court by filing the instant contempt

applications.

P a g e | 16

33. However, according to the considered opinion of this Court, no

violation by the alleged contemnor of the Court’s order dated June

19, 2023 or February 08, 2019 can be found and the reasons

therefor have been elaborately discussed above. Therefore, there is

no question of finding any intentional and willful disobedience by

the said alleged contemnor in complying with the Court’s order.

34. For the reasons discussed above, this Court does not find any

merit in the contempt applications filed by the applica nts as

mentioned above and those are liable to be dismissed.

35. Hence, contempt applications Nos. CPAN 1475 of 2023, CPAN

1481 of 2023, CPAN 1564 of 2023, CPAN 1480 of 2023 connected

with writ petitions nos. WPCT 101 of 2023, WPCT 103 of 2023,

WPCT 98 of 2023, WPCT 99 of 2023 respectively are dismissed

without any order as to costs.

36. Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be

supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance with the usual

formalities.

I agree.

(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)