Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Dhan Bahadur Singh vs General Manager N C Rly on 13 May, 2019
Open Court
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD
BENCH, ALLAHABAD
(This the 13th Day of May, 2019)
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Sagar Jain, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr, Pradeep Kumar, Member (Administrative)
Original Application No.330/00332/2017
(U/S 19. Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985)
Dhan Bahadur Singh, aged about 56 years,Son of Late Veer Bahadur Singh,
R/o 12/D, Madhavpur, Naini, Allahabad. Presenily posted as Diesel Poco
Pilot (Goods) under Chief Crew Controller (Diesel)/North Central Railway,
Allahabad.
Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Rajesh Kumar
Versus
Union of India through Genera! Manager, North Central Raiway,
Headquartesr Office, Allahabad.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad,
Allahabad Division.
3 Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (O&F), North Central Railway.
Allahabad, Allahabad Division.
Assistant Personnel Office, North Central Railway, Allahabad,
Allahabad Division.
Respondents
By Advocate: ShriS.K. Pandey
ShriPawan Kumar Srivastava
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Sagar Jain, Member (Judicial) Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar, counsel for the applicant and Shri S.K. Pandey, counsel for the respondents.
2. The applicant has filed this Original Application for quashing of order dated 30.08.2016 and 08.02.2017 (Annexure-A-1 and A-2) by which claim of the applicant for appointment of his dependent under the Larsgess Scheme has been rejected by the respondents.
Page No. 23 IT appears that Railwoay was running a Scheme known as Liberalized Active Reirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (in short LARSGESS).
4. The applicant was initially engaged in Railway as Casual Labour in August 1978. It is stated that applicant applied on 25.07.2016 (Annexure-A-6) for VRS under the aforesaid Scheme but by the impugned order respondents have rejected the same. Therefore, he has been compelled to file the present OA.
5. Main relief in the OA is appointment of the applicant/dependent of the applicant, who is a railway servant, who claims his entitlementunder the Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staf.
6. The issue of LARSGESS Scheme was examined by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.7714/2016arising out of the order passed by Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kala Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others in OA No.060/656/2014.
While disposing of the CWP No.7714/2016, Hon'ble High Court vide the judgment dated 27.04.2016held that the LARSGESS Scheme does not stand the test of the Article 14 and l6 of the Constitution of India and the Railvway Board was directed to re-consider the said Scheme. The Review petition filed by the respondents was also dismissed by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 14.07.2017. Subsequently the Railway Board challenged the order of Hon'ble High Court before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP (C) No.508/2018 and vide order dated Page No. 3 08.01.2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order of Hon'ble High Court.
7. Thereafter, the Railway Board has revievwed the LARSGESS Scheme as per the direcion of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and vide its order dated 26.09.2018 (R.B.E. No.150/2018) has decided as under:
"2. In compliance with the above directions, Ministry of Railways have revisited the scheme duly obtaining legal opinion and consulted Ministry of Law &Justice. Accordingly. if 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. No further appointment should be made under the Scheme excepf in cases where employees have already retired under fhe LARSGESS Scheme before 27.10.2017 (but not normally superannuated) and their wards could not be appointed due to the Scheme having been put on hold in terms of Board's letter dated 27.10.2017 though they had successfully completed the entire process and were found medically fit. All such appointments should be made with the approval of the competent authority."
8. Subsequently, another Circular dated 28.09.2018 (RBE No.15/2018) was issued. The contents of circular is reproduced as below:
"In supersession to Railway Board's letter No.E(P&A) 1-2015/RT 43 dated 26.09.2018, it is stated that while the LARSGESS Scheme continues to be on hold with effect from 27. 10.2017 on account of various court cases, to impact natural justice to the staff who have already retired under LARSGESS scheme before 27.10.2017 (but not naturally superannuated) and appointment of whose wards was not made due to various formalittes, appointment of such of the wards/c andidates can be made with the approval of the competent authority."
9 Thus the LARSGESS Scheme has been terminated with effect from 27.10.2017 and only the cases where the employees have already retired under LARSGESS before 2710.2017 which is not normal superannuation andwhose case could not be considered because of Page No. 4 hold can be the order of the Railway Board to put the Scherne on considered under the Scheme.
above, this OA is
10. In view of the circumstances as discussed authority finally disposed off by remitting the matter to the competent applicant in the among the respondents to consider the case of the No.150/2018) light of the Railway Board order dated 26.09.2018 (R.B.E. as well as Circular dated 28.09.2018 (RBE No.15/2018) and to pasS an appropriate speaking order under intimation to the applicant within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion about the merit of the case while passing this order. There willbe no order as to costs.
(Pradeep Kumar) (Rakesh SagdJain)
Member (A) Member (J)
RKM/