Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Rahul Gorakhnath Rokade vs M/O Railways on 27 July, 2018
_ 1 on No.6-71/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI smucs, MUMBAI
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No . 671/2017
»ni
T
CORAMkHON'BLE SHRI R.VIJAYKUMAR, MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE SHRI R.N.SINGH, MEMBER(J) '
Rahul s/o Gorakhnath Rokade,
Aged about 25 years,
R/o Railway Portal Chawl,
lgatpuri"422403, Dist Nasik.
... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Atul Mahajan )
Versus.
l. Union of India,
Ministry of Railways,
Through the General Manager,
Central Railways, CST,
Mumbai.
"J
2. Divisional.Railway Manager ( ),
RSI Depo, Central Railway, C.S.T.,
Mnmbai.
3. Divisional Electrical Engineer (TD) '
Central Railways, Kalyan Station,
Kalyan--42l30l.
...Respondents.
Reserved on :~ 25.07.2018 _
Pronounced on :-- iM'@7??iHg
ORDER
Per : R.Vijaykumar, Member (A)
This is an application filed on ' 16.3.2017 under section ii? of the Administrative Tribunals Act, l985 against 1/ ? 1§€§F"§'§-~_-1'<'<s&<;<,~;3-.;\\< >;§\-.==:-1=5q-----
,=%'~*'E%'1..%'§?§"'iR'$"<% 'Ti? 2 E *>=>\&'*€> "~3<I>'>Ta .--_ ._ _
' '"" ' Q
2 UA N0.671/2017
the ' reply of respondents in Letter
No.BB/R/G/ELDR/LARSGESS at. 7.10.2016
advising tins applicant cut the rejection <3f
his/father's application under LARSGESS. His
father was working as Electrical TRD Khalasi at the time of his application for appointment of his son "under the LARSGESS scheme anmi when kw; was EH5 years old. The LARSGESS scheme wens expanded enui made applicable to this category of employee only from lJl.2Ol4 kn? order of time Board letter No.E(P&A) l--20lO/RT--2 dt. 24.3.2014. By that time, the applicant's father had crossed the age of 57 auui became ineligible for consideration under time LARSGESS scheme and therefore, since on the crucial cut off date, lma was Inn: eligible :fim: consideration, his application inns rejected kn: respondents and he was suitably intimated.
2. The applicant has sought to quash this impugned order and seeks chrections to respondents to lappoint the applicant under the LARSGESS scheme. The has argued. that if \ . _».. * ? - '-»-~-*3' '$"=i%=5$3"?§\§'?2§P §\w"{*» Pi. '?/.._.i._5?) *5 _ _ _ :5;:;
. 2 : .. . .. _ . ;r:_.:-:,._.-.:.:__-_-_ i 3 OA N0.671/2017 since the application was filed on 14.7.2012, the scheme announced from 2014 should have been made applicable to this case since he was otherwise eligible. He has also referred "Us three similarly situated employees whose sons lnnma been appointed ans Khalasis under the LARSGESS scheme. Although he has not provided any specific details, he has stated that' the decision of the respondents was discriminatory enni arbitrary anwi therefore, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. when the case was called today for admission, time learned counsel fin: applicant Shri Atul Mahajan was heard and the case records have been carefully perused.
4. On the claims for grant of LARSGESS, we have recently decided some cases including in OA which also read the previous decision of the comordinate Bench. of this Tribunal at Chandigarh which had held that the scheme P """"
4 DA No.67}/2017
itself was unconstitutional. The decision dated 14.07.2018 in (Ni No.7714/2016 cxf the Chandigarh Bench luni been challenged ill the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which upheld the orders of the Tribunal. The respondents then filed an SLP before the Apex Court which upheld the decision of the High Court and dismissed the SLR giving liberty to the petitioners"Railways ix) ask; for review from the concerned High Court. The Review Application No.330/2017 in WP(C) No.7714/2016 was considered by the Hon'ble High Court and dismissed by Orders dated 14.07.2017 with the following observations.
"This application inns been moved by Railways seeking recall / review of the court order dated 27.04.2016 wherein this Court made some prima facie adverse comments on the validity, legality and properity of "Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment ifiu? Safety Staff"
(LARSGESS), 2010" and directed time Railway authorities txi re- visit the said policy keeping in view the principles of equal opportunity and elimination of monopoly in public employment before making further appointments thereunder.
/
------------------------------- KW ere 11;;
- '.=??';= i 5 OA N0.671/2017 It .is pertinent rm; mention that under the said policy, Railway employees employed as Safety Staff are entitled to seek voluntary retirement and seek appointment of their wards as gmnr their eligibility. This Court found that :mnfl1.a policy was prima facie violative of Article .L4 and .16 ti' the Constitution of India. Hence, the necessary directions were issued.
We have heard learned
senior counsel for the
respondents at a considerable
length. It is true that no
notice was issued and the
Railway Authorities were not
heard while making prima facie observations but fact of the matter is that the only direction issued inf this Cburt was to re--visit the offending policy keeping" in: view the principles cu? equal opportunity on public* employment before further' appointments are made.
Such a direction was necessitated keeping in view the mandate of time Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1.
.No case rm) review ff recall the order dated 27.04.2016 is made out. #44A Dismissed."
In view of the above directions and the liberty' granted ix} the iRailway ix) re~ visit the Scheme, the legal position is settled aumi the jpresent (fix cannot jproceed J ' "~ "> 6 UA N0.671/2017 further to decide the matter on merits unless .> the Scheme itself ii; re--visited enmi again promulgated. in a form that is not ultra vires of the Constitution.
6. In these circumstances, the OA is disposed of, granting liberty to_ the applicant tme approach time appropriate forum in the Railways for re~visiting the LARSGESS Scheme and to consider his grievances. There shall be no order as to costs.
(R.NiflSingh) (R. ijaygmggj
Member (J) M A)
B.
L
em"W Ii?!
v i n .2 .. . . e.