Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Deepak Balu Gujar vs M/O Railways on 13 November, 2018
1 - O.A. No. 85/2015
CENTRAI. ADMINISTRATIVE _TRIBU'NAL '
MUMBAI sENcH,.MuMeA:.
ORIGIHALIEEELIQAIIQF_HQ;iB5/3915 iii Dated 1:.1-1.-1.s')T.._,,_£11a p3*"'* day of »N.-an-@w~*@a, 2018.
CORAM1~ HON'BLE SHRI R. VIJAYKUMAR, MEMBER(A)
I, ' _
I-ION'BLE swat. RAVINDER KAUR, mman (J) MR. DEEPAK BALU GUJAR ' Age: 26_years, Occ. Working As KHALASI In Central Railway, at KHADKI Submstation ' .1
- ..Applicant _ Versus l. Union of India Through The Secretary, fi_ Ministry of Railway Room No.10l, North Block, Central Secretariat, ' New Delhi--11000l
2. CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD, Room No; 256--A, Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road, New Delhi--ll0OOl '
3. GENERAL MANAGER Central Railway, Victoria Terminus Building, Mnmbai CST, F.-
Mumbai--40000l. A
4. Divisional Railway Manager, Ground Floor, New DRM Building, Near Le--Meridian Hotel, P%ne--411044.
5. Asst. Personnel Officer, ' Personnel Branch, 'Divisional Railway Manager, Second Floor, New DRM Building, Near Le--Meridian Hotel, Pune--4llO44 ' ' - ...Respondent (B5 Ho\vocoJre_.-$1M-Ii v~0- \/ocUr'n\.-'1?-&v\-] Reserved on :-- 16.10.2018 L Pronounced on:-- [3-H-» pg l .....I
-----------~~_- \~..==..-.-.a-.-.s'\\¢"=» <>=<<€§F R $1 "§..TI§":<><§§'~ ''''§"'3iT<<" 52; K$';"'~'.="\?§'-'-'-'-'-'-'l:1'4-"'€'"\ ??""i?
y 2 O.A. No; as/2015* t t
9-FRIlJ§§R I
.. I'
The present OA has been filed under-
-Section lilzxf the Administrative Tribunals Act, '
1985 claiming the following reliefs:
"a) That, this Hon'b1e Court may _ kindly be pleased to hold and declare, that, the letter and/or action dated -
O7.01.2015, to be illegal and null and void and accordingly, the said letter together with the action contained therein may kindly be quashed and set __ aside. ' - _
b) Conseguentially this Hon'ble Court '. may kindly be pleased to further hold. and declare, that, the Petitioner continues .in the services of the Respondents
c) 'Pending the hearing' and final disposal of the present Petition, the Petitioner may also be granted interim and ad~interim relief in terms of stay of execution and effect on Annexure A"
1 ~which' is order passed by the Respondent No.5" and/or otherwise, pending hearing and final disposal of - the present petition, the Respondents as an by way of interim relief may kindly" be directed..not to take any coercive" action or measure on the .
basis of Annexure A-1 against the
Petitioner =
d) Any other order in the interest of justice may kindly passed in favour of ' the Petitioner"
' 2.' Vide. jpresent (Mk the applicant Ihas challenged the letter dated 07.01.2015 issued by . the respondents claiming" the same _1xi be L "
In arbitrary and discriminatory exercise of power .by the respondent no. 5 and violative of 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is alleged that vide .1 .r§k%WMWMi |-
----------;------1------ - v >'<'nv"":»n<\'-<2"=:"»/'\>> 2 was its e...e<<...*>v "*%'*>'*7€ 555%-~-§?€'~?%§*§?§§?§§€'@'%?t%1??
- -3 O.A. N0. 85/2015 this letter the .respondent "no. 5 without any 1 .
basis. has terminated. service of time applicant without due process of law. As per the OA the father' mxf the applicant inns working with r respondents on the post of Khalasi in electrical . 5|' -
substation. On completion of qualifying service .-
of IN] years, he cgnxni for voluntary retirement
-\ |
under tins LARSGESS scheme. ifina respondents
informed tine father of time petitioner that his
request for _voluntary retirement in LARSGESS
"scheme was accepted' by the competent. authority
wef. 07.04.2014. On 11.04.2014, the present
L-
applicant was issued 'appointment letter by the
Respondents to the post of Khalasi in Electrical Subdivision which is included in group TD ie TRD staff "working :U1 tracks in (NEE in' electrical departments as against the retirement of his father. It is submitted that when the benefit of LARSGESS scheme inns extended."to time applicant J.» -- - ' the decision of the' Respondent no. 2' dated 24.03.2014 was applicable to him as vide this letter the LARSGESS scheme was extended to the categories ie.-welectrical. powers .staff "working on track, track machine staff working in track, bridge staff working on track, TRD staff working _ 1 'I ,__,....----'-"--' '''' _ \\\ ,\ V >_ .-.-;.?I=a;.\»¢¢¢¢¢xigpi 1-§.<e=<.,s\>~;~;;a==<<z<~'§><\$;=?,..<¢.¥¥%?€$;§e,e see.."ge; %'§&li'~§*K*§'£'-;~;g<.'§.*;'-32* In 4 " . O.A. N0. 85/2015 on track, PWT Khalasis working on track, all with tins Grade Pay cu? Rs. 1800. The impugned letter dated 07.01.2015 is the show cause notice
1| .
to time applicant "whereby Ina was informed."that his appointment in Railways against the LARSGESS is void as his father Khalasi -of substation in electrical. department..is run; covered iuwhnc the LARSGESS scheme and thus, the appointment of the applicant has become invalid. -
3." The respondents have contested the application and have filed detailed reply and 4: -
have submitted" that the father of the
applicant" was a necessary party but he has
rufizlbeen impleaded i11"the present (El and on
this gnxnuxi itself, the cur is liable ix) be
dismissedd ,l'.-
jIt is further submitted that the
-.
-\' .
father of the petitioner was working as
Khalasi in substation group of TD ie. TRD and on completion of 21 years 11 months 5 days of qualifying" service, Ihe lmui applied. for voluntary retirement. against "the Ischeme of retirement for the second cycle of 2013, r. ' however, ii: is claimed that kn; letter dated 24.03.2014, ijua LARSGESS scheme inns extended ===~==""~"""="=""="-""=>"=*-Yviif;1".".";11":-"rtr-'-=;?.:::;./M. . ..---<-~-\-.w><.. rs»:-.=.=.=='<>$ <$~T<<I\\><<»~<T<:<_-"< we, €<@;"."E==\"i>.%E'\z'//.=<><>¥~'5$'..@>>-.r»==\>§-" as. ax I' . 5 O.A. No. 85/2015 tx> further tfixma categories i11 grade gum? of
- - 1- 1000 but these categories were applicable for the period between Jan~June 2014 whereas the application. of time father" of tflua applicant was for second cycle of 2013.. It is further submitted (EH1 Group tens included tnuhnr the LARSGESS Scheme vide Rly Board's letter no E(P&)l~2010/RT~2 at 24.03.2014 (applicable from January+June " 2014) retirement/ recruitment. It ;Ms also submitted tfinn: Shri Balu IEknath.¢3ujarLDate cu? birth. 30/06/1963] had put in more than 20 years of qualifying service and 'prescribed age group of 50-57 years but TD Group was not eligible under the scheme cxf LARSGESS pmior tn) 01.01.2014 and his application for voluntary" retirement against LARSGESS was for Ilnd cycle of 2013 and as per Head quarter's letter no HPB/403.EL/MTSC/LARSGESS dated 22_.12.20l4' as r-- ' TD Staff is not included under the scheme of LARSGESS in terms of Railway Board's letter dated 11.09.2010 prior to 01.01.2014 and his application was for ljkmicqpiha of"2013 hence
-==-.~-.-==--:".1r';.;_:_;.;_;.'1:.".".".".1r.1""""""--~"-----~'r>~'>'%'=?§EE?E;§Fi-FE?'=*'*'-'-"""'"IT.T§Y.l1"I~ "'"'" ,5 } 5?" _____mi "nit" FE' /55-_\'5']?'\§'§1~i;='?1§€9\'<~$l"§"&'?&.. . 6 - O.A. No. 85/2015 1
Show cause notice dated 07.01.2015 was issued to .kxuj1 father. Shri EEHJ1 Eknath(Retired Employee) and Shri I Deepak _Balu Gujar (Appointed employee). It is submitted that in the circumstances, the present OA is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
4. Today when the nunnxn: is called out, none appeared for the applicant. I A
5. V Shri IJJJ. Vadhavkar, Jififlfifil Advocate appeared I for the respondents" We have carefully perused the case records." .
6. In times case, tine applicant inn: was appointed under "tins" LARSGESS scheme has challenged the -impugned show~cause. notice dated 07.01.2015(Annex.IAr1) kn; whioh he was called upon to explain as to why his services should not I be terminated since his 1 n appointment is invalid on the ground that his father who wast working in the" Electrical Department was not covered under LARSGESS scheme. . -
I" F
7. There is no interim order passed by
this Tribunal in tfimefifll staying the impugned 1 1'.-
. qywwwwmy
'* _"' '___ .::".":'::.".".".1:::::::::::::"""""""""""""""""" _____ ______"Hm? < 'ii? """""" -9?' '§>"*§§'@~§
- 7 O.A. No. 85/2015
show-----cause notice. The learned Advocate for
I.-
the respondents submitted that the services
of the applicant are still continued although he did-not -A submit reply to the shows cause notice. Ufiunm "till date tuna respondents have not terminated applicant's service acting on the impugned show~cause notice. I
8.. In view of the above, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, 1 .
the (E1 stands disposed off nUifi1.a direction "U3 the) Personnel Officer Pune Bdvision, appropriate authority from Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to treat the present OA itself as the reply of the applicant to the said show~cause 1'. 4' notice, consider it and pass the apmmopriate reasoned order thereon in _accordance with law, within a period of.6 weeks from the date of receipt tn? certified copy <n€ this order, after giving personal ' hearing to the applicant. I
9." The order so "passed rshall then be communicated to the applicant' at A the earliest, Iwho "will be at the liberty to =----.-.1.;,;;-_~;-*~>""""~"~;7,1:1:77:~---'-*-*"-'*>"*'-""-'--"jf_2§,=.-.-.==-- ........ -- ;;;-------- _ 3, *4 g {(1% \_'_?§i_i\X§""""""H-§§'{§'§i?§'T'_"'_'_=§Z'5€}~§§s"_?>i}\§'£' <$,'i%¥$,*$a"?}> é' "_:=.i |L|_i_.::_._::_=55_"__U34 ___ V " |:f_='=';'-_1.§-EE-I:§.§.f§:§1.f;Ij§flfl7-1.I:5-1T!!!-11117-'i&1:'i-11-1751==ZE§|§§|§-5;;-153;]-53;:-;-; ------------- ----------------- -- --.--.--i---n-------1---11-1--1-H---------------1-1n------------- ------------i----"--------- - - " ' 8' O.A. No. 85/2015 approach tins appropriate forum 3M1 case Irma grievance still persists. t 10.1 It; is made clear_ that. we have":not made any comments on the merits of the claim I made in the OA.
ii .
11. 1 The registry is directed to issue
|.
certified copy of this order to Iboth the
-parties) at .the earliest for taking
appropriate steps in the matter, as indicated
above." I 1
F
|
4|."-v-
rt) I
~= g.m.w
11/ tow")
s"
,_._ . .
>_--
n.-.'- -
\_7n.'_. .
!....