Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Friday, 07 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2019-02-22 allowed

ANIL KUMAR vs UNION OF INDIA

Bench: 2 — D.Y. Chandrachud, Navin Sinha

In Brief

The appellant's father's house was entirely demolished for the Ara-Sasaram Railway Project. The Railway Board Circular of 1983 and 19 April 2006 provided for employment to displaced persons in Group D posts where large area, house or substantial livelihood was taken away. After his father's death, the appellant sought enforcement of this policy. The High Court initially directed consideration of his claim but it was rejected. The Supreme Court held that the rejection was contrary to the binding policy circular. The Court clarified that the circular's phrase 'large area, house or substantial livelihood' is disjunctive—the demolition of the entire house alone qualified the appellant. The appeal was allowed and the appellant's appointment to a Group D post was directed within two months.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Administrative Law Railway Law Displaced Persons Right to Employment Policy Implementation Social Justice

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login