Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Shankar vs General Manager, N E Rly on 1 December, 2020
Reserved on 19.10.2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
(This the 01st Day of December, 2020)
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vijay Lakshmi, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (Administrative)
Original Application No.330/472/2020
Shankar a/a 63 years S/o Late Bhrigrasan, R/o C/o Kamal Kishore Prasad
House No.229 P Gayatri Nagar, Kurnaghat, Gorakhpur.
................ Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Shashi Kant Rai
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, N.E.R., Gorakhpur.
2. The Divisional Personal Officer, N.E.R., Ashok Marg, Lucknow.
..... ............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri P.K. Rai
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vijay Lakshmi, Member (Judicial) We have heard Shri Shashi Kant Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri P.K. Rai, leaned counsel for the respondents on admission and have perused the record.
2. This is the second round of litigation by the applicant. Earlier the applicant by means of OA No.1131 of 2014 (Shankar vs. Union of India & Ors) had approached this Tribunal, which was decided on 16.05.2019, with a direction to the respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the applicant within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The respondent No.2 decided the representation of the applicant vide order dated 30.09.2019 OA No. 472/2020 whereby rejecting the applicant‟s claim for appointment of his son under the LARSGESS Scheme. The above order dated 30.09.2019 has been challenged by means of the present OA by the applicant.
3. The facts in brief are that applicant was working on the post of Khalasi in North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. He applied for voluntarily retirement and requested for recruitment of his son under the LARSGESS Scheme (Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff). Under the provisions of LARSGESS Scheme, the Group „D‟ staff of Railways engaged in safety category with grade pay up to Rs.1800/- within the age group of 50 to 57 years and having qualifying service of 20 years, may apply for voluntarily retirement from service and in lieu one of their wards is provided a guaranteed employment in the Railway subject to his eligibility and medical fitness.
4. The applicant submitted his application under the aforesaid provisions, which was rejected by the concerned respondents on the ground that while scrutinizing the application of the applicant and other documents submitted by him, it was noticed that the applicant at that time was working as Technician-III (Group „C‟) in Mechanical (C&W) Depot, at Gorakhpur, which is a Group „C‟ post. The applicant had already joined the promotional post and was drawing a higher grade pay than the grade pay of Rs.1800/. However, in the salary slip as his post and pay were erroneously mentioned as Khalasi and Rs.1800/- G.P., therefore, the same was rectified from the month of August, 2014. As the LARGSESS Scheme Page 2 of 6 OA No. 472/2020 is applicable only to the wards of Group „D‟ employee and at the time of scrutinization of documents of applicant for LARSGESS, it was found that applicant was working as Technician-III, which is a Group „C‟ post hence, his application was rejected.
5. The other grounds of rejection of the applicant‟s representation/application were that i) the applicant had already retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.12.2016 and his retirement dues were also paid to him as per extant rules.
ii) the LARSGESS Scheme has been terminated w.e.f. 27.10.2017, therefore, no further appointments can be made under this scheme except in cases, where the employees have already retired under the LARSGESS Scheme before 27.10.2017 and not normally superannuated.
iii) As the applicant had naturally superannuated much before the cut off date i.e. 27.10.2017, his case does not come under the purview of the RBE No.150/2018.
6. Challenging the legality and correctness of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the applicant has contended that since up to January, 2013, the applicant was working on the post of Khalasi with grade pay of Rs.1800/-, his son was allowed to appear in the written examination on 07.09.2013. However, he was restrained to appear in the medical test on the ground that the applicant had been promoted in class-III category on the relevant date. It is further contended that although the applicant had Page 3 of 6 OA No. 472/2020 informed in writing that he is willing to accept LARSGESS Scheme and is not interested in his promotion but he was promoted to Group „C‟ in February, 2013 with Grade Pay of Rs.2000/-. Thereafter, on his request the authorities reverted him in September, 2013 in grade pay of Rs.1800/-. However, despite all this, his son was not given job under the LARSGESS Scheme.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the admission of this OA by submitting that the representation of the applicant as directed by this Tribunal on 16.05.2019 in OA No.1131 of 2014 (Shankar vs. Union of India & Ors), has been decided by the well reasoned order in accordance with law. Further, the LARSGES Scheme has been terminated in pursuance of the judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court w.e.f. 27.10.2017 therefore, now the applicant‟s son cannot be appointed under the said scheme and the OA is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage, as not maintainable.
8. In this regard our attention has been drawn to the judgments passed by Hon‟ble Delhi High Court, Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India having direct bearing on the outcome of this OA. It is contended that due to the reason that LARSGESS has been discontinued w.e.f. 27.10.2017, (a fact which finds mention in Para No.5.11 of the OA also), the claim of the applicants has become automatically redundant.
9. It would be worthwhile to briefly quote some extracts from the Judgments/Orders referred to in the preceding paragraphs. The Page 4 of 6 OA No. 472/2020 issue of the LARSGESS Scheme was meticulously examined by the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.7714/2016. This CWP was the outcome of the orders passed by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kala Singh and Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. While disposing of the above referred CWP the Hon‟ble High Court in its Judgment dated 27.04.2016 unambiguously mentioned that the LARSGESS Scheme fails the test of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It further directed the Railway Board to review the said Scheme in view of these observations. The Railway Board chose to assail this order before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide SLP (C) 508/2018 and the Hon‟ble Apex Court through its order dated 08.01.2018 declined to interfere in the order of the Hon‟ble High Court. As a consequence, the Railway Board discontinued the scheme and gave categorical directions to all its sub-ordinate offices that; "no further appointments should be made under the scheme"
which stood terminated w.e.f. 27.10.2017.
10. Although the above referred Judgments and orders make the position abundantly clear, the observations of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 13597/2018 SH. Ram Sevak and Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. dated 11.01.2019, are also worth mentioning especially in the light of the arguments adduced by the learned counsel for the applicant that his client had made the applications much earlier whereas some appointments were made on the basis of applications made much later. While dismissing the petition the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi observed that:-
"The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that his application under the said scheme had been made Page 5 of 6 OA No. 472/2020 earlier, and those who made the application later were granted the benefit of the LARSGESS Scheme. In our view, that is no ground to claim the relief sought by the petitioners. There is no vested right in the petitioners to claim the benefit of an illegal scheme. Merely because some others may have got away with the benefit under the scheme before being declared illegal, does not justify perpetuation of the illegality by granting benefit under the said scheme to the petitioners."
11. As is abundantly clear from the position stated above, there is absolutely no ambiguity or doubt about the facts that the LARSGESS Scheme having been terminated w.e.f. 27.10.2017 and in the light of pronouncements made by the Hon‟ble Apex Court and Hon‟ble High Courts of Punjab and Haryana and Delhi, there are no grounds to provide any relief to the applicants. The O.A. is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage and is accordingly, dismissed.
12. No order as to costs.
(Anand Mathur) (Justice Vijay Lakshmi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
Page 6 of 6