Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Gobardhan Pradhan vs Eastern Railway on 28 April, 2026
1 O.A. No. 350/1076/2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA
O.A. No. 350/1076/2015
M.A. No. 350/497/2017
Date of Hearing: 17.04.2026
Date of Order: 28.04.2026
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member
Hon'ble Mr. Diwakar Singh, Judicial Member
1. Shri Gobardhan Pradhan son of
Late Rakhal worked for
Gateman/BRP, and SSE/P.
Chandra Pradhan, aged about 61
years, gain as Engineering
Department, Way/BRP, since
retired.
2. Shri Sukumar Pradhan son of
Shri Gobardhan Pradhan aged
about 33 years, unemployed.
Both residing at Dankuni Library
Para, Near Kishorsnagha Club,
P.S. Dankuni, Dist. Hooghly, Pin-
712311, West Bengal.
......... Applicants
-Versus-
1) Union of India, service through
the General Manager, Eastern
Railway, Fairlie Place, Kolkata-
700 001.
2) The Chief Personnel Officer,
Eastern Railway, Fairlie Place,
Kolkata 700001.
3) The Sr. Divisional Personnel
Officer, Eastern Railway, Sealdah
Division, Sealdah, Kolkata
700014.
4) The Divisional Railway
Manager, Eastern Railway,
Sealdah Division, Sealdah,
Kolkata 700014.
5) The Section Engineer,
Permanent Way Inspector,
Eastern Railway, Baruipur - 144.
Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA
UTKARS
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65=
133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone=
d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b
058b2c80169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar,
SERIALNUMBER=
87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641d
H JHA
a0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.04.30 12:36:20+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2 O.A. No. 350/1076/2015
.......Respondents
For The Applicant(s): Mr. J. R. Das; Counsel
For The Respondent(s): Mr. S. Paul; Counsel
ORDER
Per: Mr. Diwakar Singh, Member (J)
Heard Ld. Counsel on both the sides.
2. M.A. 350/497/2017 filed under Rule 4(5)(a) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for joint prosecution is allowed.
3. The present O.A. has been filed by the applicants praying, inter alia, for setting aside the communication dated 18.06.2015 (Annexure A/5) whereby the claim of the applicant no. 1 under the Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (LARSGESS) was regretted on the ground of overage, and, for consequential consideration of the applicant no. 2, being the ward of applicant no. 1, for appointment under the said Scheme. The applicants have sought the following relief(s):
"i) An order directing the respondents to cancel, rescind, withdraw or set aside the purported order/letter dated 18.06.2015 since decided the issue on wrong premises and without considering the facts on record.
ii) An order directing the respondents to effect the process of appointment to the applicant No. 2 herein since pro-forma application duly submitted by applicant No. 1 at his age of 56 years, hence squarely as per rue but considered on totally erroneous basis.Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA
UTKARS DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b 058b2c80169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641d H JHA a0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.30 12:36:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 O.A. No. 350/1076/2015
iii) To pass an appropriate order directing the respondents to submit all relevant records of the case before the Hon'ble Tribunal for conscionable justice.
iv) Any other order or further order/orders as to this Hon'ble Tribunal may seem fit and proper.
v) Relief may kindly be allowed to file the application jointly under Rule 4(5)(a) of CAT (Procedure) Rules;"
FACTS OF THE CASE
4. The facts, in brief, as borne out from the pleadings, are that the applicant no. 1 was serving under the Eastern Railway, Sealdah Division, in the Engineering Department as Gateman/BRP, a safety category post. The applicant no. 2 is his son and nominee under the Scheme.
4.1. The Railway Board, vide letter dated 11.09.2010, extended the benefit of the earlier Safety Related Retirement Scheme to additional safety categories with Grade Pay of Rs.1800/- and modified the nomenclature of the Scheme as LARSGESS. Thereafter, vide Railway Board letter dated 24.09.2010 (Annexure A/1), it was specifically clarified that the Scheme would also be applicable to Gangman/Trackman, who were already covered under the earlier arrangement, and that Gangman/Trackman in the age group of 50 to 57 years having qualifying service of 20 years would be eligible to seek retirement under the Scheme.
4.2. According to the applicants, pursuant to the aforesaid Railway Board instructions, applicant no. 1 submitted the prescribed application on 22.01.2011 seeking retirement under Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA UTKARS DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b 058b2c80169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641d H JHA a0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.30 12:36:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 O.A. No. 350/1076/2015 the Scheme and requesting consideration of applicant no. 2 for appointment. It is their case that on the date of such application, applicant no. 1 was within the prescribed age bracket and fulfilled all eligibility conditions. 4.3. The applicant no. 1 thereafter retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2014. The applicants contend that despite repeated representations and follow-up correspondence, the claim under LARSGESS remained unattended for a considerable period. 4.4. Ultimately, by communication dated 18.06.2015, the respondents informed that the application of applicant no. 1 had been regretted by the competent authority on the ground of overage.
4.5. Aggrieved thereby, the applicants have approached this Tribunal contending that the rejection on the ground of overage is wholly untenable, inasmuch as the application had been submitted on 22.01.2011 when applicant no. 1 was within the age limit then prevailing.
4.6. The respondents have filed their reply stating, inter alia, that the relevant cut-off date for reckoning eligibility under the Scheme was 01.07.2011, and, as on the said date, the applicant no. 1 had crossed the upper age limit by 27 days. They have also relied upon a Sealdah Division communication dated 01.06.2011 prescribing, for the second half of 2011, a Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA UTKARS DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b 058b2c80169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641d H JHA a0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.30 12:36:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 O.A. No. 350/1076/2015 cut-off date of 01.07.2011 and last date of submission as 31.07.2011.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
5. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the Railway Board letters dated 11.09.2010 and 24.09.2010 conferred eligibility upon safety category employees including Gangman/Trackman in the age group of 50 to 57 years with qualifying service of 20 years, and, the applicant no. 1 had applied within such framework on 22.01.2011. 5.1. It is contended that no cut-off date of 01.07.2011 existed when the application was submitted. Therefore, a subsequent divisional circular dated 01.06.2011 could not retrospectively be invoked so as to defeat an already submitted claim. 5.2. It is further submitted that the respondents have not shown any Railway Board instruction in force as on 22.01.2011 prescribing that pending applications would be governed only by the later date of 01.07.2011. 5.3. It is also urged that the rejection order is cryptic and does not disclose proper reasons except a bald reference to overage.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
6. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that under the Scheme, eligibility was to be assessed with reference to the notified cut-off dates prescribed for the relevant cycle of processing. It is contended that the Sealdah Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA UTKARS DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b 058b2c80169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641d H JHA a0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.30 12:36:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 O.A. No. 350/1076/2015 Division circular dated 01.06.2011 clearly fixed 01.07.2011 as the cut-off date for reckoning eligibility of employees and their wards for seeking retirement under the Scheme. 6.1. It is submitted that as on 01.07.2011, the applicant no. 1 was aged 57 years and 27 days and had crossed the permissible age ceiling. Therefore, the rejection of the application on the ground of overage was justified. 6.2. The respondents further submit that no enforceable right accrued merely upon submission of an application and consideration was necessarily subject to applicable guidelines.
ANALYSIS
7. We have considered the pleadings and submissions of both parties and examined the records placed before us. 7.1. The short issue arising for consideration in the present case is whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the claim of applicant no. 1 as overage by applying the cut-off date of 01.07.2011, when the application under LARSGESS had admittedly been submitted earlier on 22.01.2011. 7.2. It is not in dispute that Railway Board letter dated 24.09.2010 extended applicability of the Scheme to Gangman/Trackman and stipulated that employees in the age group of 50 to 57 years having qualifying service of 20 years would be eligible to seek retirement under the Scheme. The Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA UTKARS DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b 058b2c80169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641d H JHA a0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.30 12:36:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 O.A. No. 350/1076/2015 said instruction, on its plain terms, does not disclose any cut- off date of 01.07.2011.
7.3. The respondents rely upon the subsequent Sealdah Division circular dated 01.06.2011 which, while dealing with processing for the second half of 2011, mentioned that the cut- off date for reckoning eligibility would be 01.07.2011 and the last date for submission of applications would be 31.07.2011. 7.4. In our considered view, unless expressly stated otherwise, executive instructions are ordinarily prospective in operation. A later administrative circular fixing a cut-off date for a subsequent processing cycle cannot automatically be construed as retrospectively nullifying or disqualifying applications already submitted under the prevailing framework, particularly, when no such retrospective intent is spelt out. 7.5. The language of the circular dated 01.06.2011 itself indicates that it pertained to applications "for period pertaining to second half of 2011". Prima facie, therefore, it appears to regulate the cycle commencing thereafter rather than extinguish earlier pending applications. 7.6. If the respondents intended to apply the later cut-off date even to applications already received between September 2010 and June 2011, the burden lay upon them to place on record a specific Railway Board instruction or policy clarification to that effect. No such material has been produced before us. Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA UTKARS DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b 058b2c80169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641d H JHA a0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.30 12:36:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 O.A. No. 350/1076/2015 7.7. It is also noteworthy that although several judicial pronouncements have dealt with the LARSGESS Scheme generally, no judgment on the precise issue involved herein, namely, retrospective application of the cut-off date of 01.07.2011 to an application submitted on 22.01.2011 after extension of the Scheme to Gangman/Trackman, has been cited or brought on record before us.
7.8. Be that as it may, it is well settled that claims under a service scheme are ordinarily to be examined in accordance with the rules and instructions prevailing on the relevant date, and that administrative authorities are required to pass reasoned orders dealing with the actual claim raised. It has also been observed in various matters relating to LARSGESS that subsequent developments or later withdrawal of the Scheme would not automatically defeat claims that had otherwise matured under the policy then in force. 7.9. The impugned communication dated 18.06.2015 merely states that the application was regretted on the ground of overage. It does not disclose any reasoning as to why an application submitted on 22.01.2011 would be tested solely with reference to 01.07.2011, nor does it refer to any competent Railway Board direction mandating such course. 7.10. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires fresh examination by the competent authority on the correct legal premise. Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA UTKARS DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b 058b2c80169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641d H JHA a0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.30 12:36:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 O.A. No. 350/1076/2015 CONCLUSION
8. Accordingly, without expressing any final opinion on the ultimate entitlement of the applicants under the Scheme, the impugned communication dated 18.06.2015 is set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the applicants afresh, particularly with reference to:
(i) the Railway Board letters dated 11.09.2010 and 24.09.2010;
(ii) the fact that the application was submitted on 22.01.2011;
(iii) whether the subsequent circular dated 01.06.2011 was intended to operate retrospectively so as to govern already submitted applications; and
(iv) any other relevant instructions in force on the date of application.
8.1. A reasoned and speaking order shall be passed by the competent authority within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shall be communicated to the applicants forthwith.
9. The O.A., along with the M.A., is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.
(Diwakar Singh) (Anindo Majumdar)
Member (J) Member (A)
UJ
Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA
UTKARS
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b 058b2c80169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641d H JHA a0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.30 12:36:20+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0