Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Jai Kishan vs M/O Railways on 21 April, 2023
Item 5/C-IV OA 4123/2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No. 4123/2018
This the 21th Day of April, 2023
Hon'ble Manish Garg, Member (J)
Sh. Jai Kishan S/o Late Sh. Mange Ram
Aged 40 years
Residence of House No. 72
Block A, Gali No. 2, Friends Enclave,
Mundka, Delhi-110041
...... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr R. K. Sharma with Mr. S. K.Gulia)
Versus
1. The Secretary
Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhawan, Rai Shina Marg
New Delhi-110001
2. The Gneral Manager
North-Western Railway,
HQ Office, Near Jawahar Circle
Jaipur Pin: 302017
3. The Divisional Railway Manager
Modern Market, Karni Colony
Kuchilpura, Bikaner,
Rajasthan 334001
.......Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Piyush Gaur)
Item 5/C-IV OA 4123/2018
ORDER (Oral):
The bone of contention of the applicant is that his genuine claim for appointment under the Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (LARSGESS) Scheme has been denied by the respondents without considering his eligibility and merits. He further submits that at the time of interview and written examination, LARSGESS Scheme was in operation and, therefore, the effect of the subsequent closure of the Scheme on the basis of decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is prospective in nature. Based on aforesaid submission, the applicant has prayed for following reliefs:-
"(a) To direct the respondents, consider the case of applicant and declare the selection of applicant is valid & pass the order thereby direction the respondent to given employment to the applicant in group C/group D post, on compassionate ground in lieu of services of his father. He was dies on duty hours with the respondents, for which applicant legally entitled.
(b) Any other order/relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case, be also passed in favor of the applicant and against the respondent with cost throughout."
2. Without going into the averments made in the O.A. or into any of the merits of the scheme, we would like to point out that in a large number of similar OAs, this Bench and various Benches of this Tribunal have held 2 Item 5/C-IV OA 4123/2018 that since the LARSGESS scheme is no longer in operation and it has been held to be ultra virus of the Constitution and patently illegal by the different Courts, no relief under this Scheme would be granted to anyone. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the observations of this Tribunal in an identical matter which was agitated in OA No. 260 of 2020. While disposing of the said OA, this Tribunal has held as under:-
"7. It would be worthwhile to briefly quote from the Judgments/Orders referred to in the preceding paragraphs. The issue of the LARSGESS Scheme was meticulously examined by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryaya 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 © 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.
8. Although the above referred Judgments and orders made the position abundantly clear the observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 11.01.2019 in WP (C)13597/2018 in the case of Sh. Ram Sevak and Ors Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. are also pertinent 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 petitions the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi stated that:-
"The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that his application under the 3 Item 5/C-IV OA 4123/2018 said scheme had been made 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."
3. In addition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) 1407 of 2019 had held that once the scheme itself was withdrawn, no benefit whatsoever including one of consideration of representation would be afforded to any of the person. Similarly, in CWP No. 78 of 2021 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the LARSGESS scheme is fundamentally against the Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
4. In view of the situation explained above, there is no merit in the instant OA, which is accordingly dismissed.
5. No order as to costs.
(Manish Garg) Member (J) /pinky/ 4 Item 5/C-IV OA 4123/2018
2. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant even did not appear for the written test pursuant to LARGESS Scheme in July, 2011. It is further pointed out that the applicant is guilty of perjury inasmuch as earlier the date of birth was given 01.01.1979 by the applicant, the same was later on corrected to 16.06.1980. He further states that in the present case FIR is ought to be lodged, however, the department chose not initiate any action for filing the FIR in peculiar facts of the case. It is also relevant to mention here that the LARGESS scheme has been abolished by the Railway itself therefore no relief can be granted to the applicant.
3. During course of the arguments, attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the respondents to Para 4.2 of the counter reply wherein it has been noted as under:-
4.2 ........the father of the applicant Sh. Mange Ram, Sh. Kantu Ram, while working as gateman in grade pay 18007- under SSE/P. Way /CKD availed an opportunity in the July 2011 cycle of above mentioned scheme of LARSGESS and submitted application for voluntary retirement of himself and appointment. of his Son Sh. Jai Kishan (applicant). But, before completion of process of July 2011 cycle, Sh. Mange Ram (Father of the applicant) while working as gateman under SSE/P. Way /CKD expired On 22/12/2011 during ser service.
Since as per RBE No. 131/2010 (Annexure-R-1) and 99/2011 (Annexure R-4) retirement of employee and appointment of the ward should take place simultaneously, question to proceed further wit the case of applicant in LARSGESS scheme does not arises. The applicant has not submitted any document to support 5 Item 5/C-IV OA 4123/2018 his case. On perusal of Annexure -6 submitted by the applicant., it is clear that it is only a list of eligible wards called for Written test under LARSGESS-July 2011. It is a fact that Since process was going on and information regarding death of Sh. Mange Ram was not received in this office, name of the applicant Was shown in the said list. The list of all wards (for the period from 01.07.2011 to 31.07.2011) found eligible On the basis of eligibility criteria laid down to apply for the LARSGESS scheme Was issued vide this office letter dated 27.02.2012 (Annexure R-23) with instruction that before recruitment and appointment a Written test Will be held On 18.03.2012 and candidates should report along With prescribed identity letter. The result for all those who appeared in Written test On 18.03.2012, even pass Or fail, was declared vide this office letter dated 30.04.2012 (Annexure R-24). The name of the applicant does not exist in this result list, which proves that applicant did not appeared in the Written test held On 18.03.2012, because of the fact that his father Sh. Mange Ram has expired On 22.11.2011 and prescribed identity letter cannot be signed by now."
4. In light of the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant even did not appear for the written test pursuant to LARGESS Scheme in July, 2011, therefore, the contention that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court being prospective in nature, cannot be regarded as correct submission. In the facts and circumstances, the matter is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court declaring the LARGESS Scheme as not applicable.
5. In view of aforesaid, this OA devoids on merit and hence dismissed.
6. No order as to costs.
6 Item 5/C-IV OA 4123/2018 7