Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Shiv Prasad And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 4 February, 2019

Author: Vipin Sanghi

Bench: Vipin Sanghi, A. K. Chawla

$~24
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 1146/2019 & CM APPL. 5194/2019 (stay)
       SHIV PRASAD AND ANR.                               ..... Petitioners
                    Through:            Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Advocate.

                          versus

       UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.                  ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. J.K. Singh, Standing Counsel for
                               Railways with Mr. Harsh Pandit,
                               Advocate.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
                    ORDER
       %            04.02.2019

       Issue notice.

Mr. Singh, learned Standing Counsel for Railways accepts notice on behalf of respondents.

The petitioner No.1 and 2 are the father and the son. Under the LARSGESS Scheme (Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employee for Safety Staff), the petitioner No.1 was allowed to seek voluntary retirement and petitioner No.2 was appointed in his place on 19.06.2013. Petitioner No.2 was sought to be terminated on 27.11.2013 i.e. after a period of about five months on the ground that the said Scheme was not applicable to the petitioners. The petitioners then preferred the Original Application No.4265/2013 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi wherein an interim order was passed in their favour, and which continued to operate till passing of the order in the aforesaid Original Application i.e. till 19.11.2018. Thus, the petitioner No.2 continued to serve continuously from 19.06.2013 onwards till the Original Application was disposed of on 19.11.2018.

We have, in similar circumstances, while dismissing the writ petition protected the services of the son on account of the fact that he had been employed, and had been serving for several years, in 'Mewa Lal Pal and Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr.', W.P.(C) 10279/2017, decided on 25.01.2019.

We dispose of the present writ petition on the same terms. We direct that in the light of the aforesaid, the respondents shall examine the claim of petitioner No.1 for release of his pension. The orders in this regard shall be passed within four weeks from today.

VIPIN SANGHI, J A. K. CHAWLA, J FEBRUARY 04, 2019 nn