- (1.) Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Railways.
(2.) Applicant's claim for employment under LARSGESS Scheme (Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff) was rejected on 23.12.2016. Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi vide order dated 18.12.2019 (Annexure-6), impugned herein, dismissed the O.A. No. 051/00212/2017 wherein the order of rejection dated 23.12.2016 was challenged, holding as under: "8. Since the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the LARSGESS Scheme does not stand to the test of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the appeal against the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court declined to interfere with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana High Court. Considering the same, the respondents Railway Board has terminated the LARSGESS Scheme. However, vide Railway Board decision dated 28.09.2018 RBE No.151/2018, decided to impart natural justice to the staff who have already retired under LARSGESS scheme before 27.10.2017 [but not naturally superannuated] an appointment of whose wards was not made due to various formalities, appointment of such of the wards/candidates can be made with the approval of the competent authority. Therefore, the applicant's grievance cannot be tenable in view of aforesaid circular issued by the respondents. 9. We are of the considered opinion that since the LARSGESS Scheme has been declared as not stand to the test of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India [by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana] and the respondents have terminated the said scheme except the employees of Railway who meet with criteria laid down in their circular dated 28.09.2018, i.e. RBE 151/2018. Under the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision taken by the respondents for not accepting the claim of the applicant for employment of his ward under the LARSGESS Scheme. 10. Accordingly, the claim of the applicant for appointment under the LARSGESS Scheme cannot be entertained in terms of RBE No. 151/2018 as the same is found unconstitutional by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court [supra]."
(3.) Both the parties have relied upon the order dated 26.03.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 219/2019 (Annexure-5) which reads as under: "In SLP (Civil) No. 508 of 2018 arising from judgment and order dated 14.07.2017 rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RP No. 330/2017, the question for consideration was - whether the LARSGESS Scheme under which the dependents of those who were working in Railways could be accommodated in service was valid or not? The matter thereafter engaged attention of this court and finally a decision was taken by Union of India on 05.03.2019 to terminate the LARSGESS Scheme. These developments were noted in the order dated 06.03.2019 and the pending petition i.e. MA No. 346/2019 in M.A. No. 1202/2018 in SLP (Civil) No. 508/2018 was disposed of. The order noted as under: "The petitioner has since then taken a decision on 5th March, 2019 to terminate the LARSGESS Scheme and the decision so taken is as under:- "In compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 27.04.2016 in CWP No. 7714 of 2016, dated 14.07.2017 in RA-CW-330-2017 and Orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 08.01.2018 in SLP (C) No. 508/2018, Ministry of Railways have revisited the LARSGESS Scheme duly obtaining legal opinion and consulted Ministry of Law & Justice. Accordingly, it has been decided to terminate the LARSGESS Scheme w.e.f. 27.10.2017 i.e. the date from which it was put on hold. Therefore, no further appointments should be made under the Scheme subject to position mentioned in para 2 below. 2. As regards the cases where the wards had completed all formalities including Medical Examination under LARSGESS Scheme prior to 27.10.2017 and were fount fit, but the employees are yet to retire, the matter is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and further instructions would be issued as per directions of the Hon'ble Court." Since the Scheme stands terminated and is no longer in existence, nothing further need be done in the matter. Application (s) is / are accordingly, disposed of." The present writ petition prays inter alia for the following reliefs: "Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to appoint the petitioners in their respective cadres." Since the petitioners are claiming benefit under the Scheme which was prevalent when applications were preferred by the petitioners, we give liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned authorities with appropriate representation. If such representation is made, the authorities will do well to consider the matter within two weeks on preferring of the representation. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 3. According to the petitioner, though LARSGESS Scheme was terminated vide RBE Circular No. 151/2018 dated 26.09.2018, but the claim of the persons who had preferred applications under the Scheme when it was prevalent, have been considered by the Respondent authorities in view of the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the concluding paragraph of the judgment dated 26.03.2019, quoted above. In support thereof, petitioner has referred to Railway Board's letter dated 12.07.2019 (Annexure-7) (Page-56); letter dated 20.05.2019 (page-57) clarification regarding LARSGESS of Adra Division whose services were terminated after 27.10.2017 belonging to 1st phase of LARSGESS-2017 issued by the South Eastern Railway; letter dated 11.06.2019 issued by the Northern Railway regarding disposal of representation submitted for employment under LARSGESS Scheme in light of Supreme Court's orders in W.P.(C) No. 219/2019; instances of recruitment of wards under LARSGESS under South Eastern Railway vide letter dated 11.06.2019 (Page59); instruction of the Railway Board dated 29.05.2019 to the General Manager, Northern, North Frontier and South Central Railways to the effect that if any individual representations have been received in the light of the Apex Court Orders dated 26.03.2019, Railway should examine and dispose of such representation based on the factual matrix of the case. Petitioner has also enclosed one letter dated 07.06.2019 issued by the South Central Railway in the case of one L. Nageshwara Rao for appointment of his son Rohit Kumar under LARSGESS Scheme who had qualified in the written test and Aptitude test and was called upon for verification of his identity and medical examination. Reliance is also placed upon the Office Order No. 6/2020 dated 28.01.2020 containing the list of 24 candidates in connection with their claim for employment under LARSGESS Scheme in the light of Apex Court order and also instance of one Ram Yash Pandey, s/o Late Shiv Nath Pandey (Annexure-9) in whose regard the competent authority had accorded approval to consider his case in Group-D Post under LARSGESS Scheme vide letter dated 26.11.2019 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Lucknow. Regarding the second ground of objection raised by the Railways of non-completion of 20 years of requisite qualifying service in Safety Category by the applicant's father in the prescribed Grade Pay of Rs. 1800 and Rs. 1900, as per the Notification dated 13.06.2013, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the transfer letter dated 08.01.1986 (Annexure-3 series) at page-34 and certain extracts of service book at Annexure-11 to the rejoinder to refute the contention that the employee was taken into the post of Khalashi in 1998 only. According to the petitioner, his father was a Call Boy from 1981 till 1986 and thereafter transferred as Khalashi in 1986. Since 1986 till the cut-off date for application i.e. 01.01.2013, he remained in the Safety Category post of Khalashi. It is submitted that the entire service book of the petitioner's father has not been enclosed to refute this contention. ;