Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Rudrappa Parasappakajur vs M/O Railways on 1 February, 2024
1 OA No.316/00121/2623 - - 0' CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH 0A/310/00121/2023 Dated this Thursday, the 1* day of February, Two Thousand Twenty Four CORAM : HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDLMEMBER(A) AND Sm HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER() Rudrappa Parasappa Kajur, Retd. Pointsman, Plot No.12, Door No.1, Appar Street Extn., New Perungalathur, Chennai. . Applicant By Advocate M/s. Ratio Legis Vs. 1.Union of India rep by the General Manager, South Western Railway, Hubli, Gadag, Dharward, Kamataka. 2.The Divisional Personnel Officer, Hubli Division, South Western Railway, Hubli, Gadag, Dharward, Karnataka. -. Respondents By Advocate Mr. R.S. Krishnaswamy Mas ae) 2 OA No.3 10/00121/2023 ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by The Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) The OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"to call for the records related to the impugned order No.H/P.579//PMan/SRRS/Vol dated 21/22.09.2016 and the representation dated 02.12.2020 and to quash ithe impugned order and further to direct the respondents to give effect to the appointment offered to the applicant's son and to pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper and thus render justice."
2. Bunef facts of the case as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:
The applicant, while working as a Pointsman had submitted a requisition for retirement with consequential appointment to his son in terms of the Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff Scheme (LARSGESS Scheme, for short).
The applicant's son was shortlisted, vide letter, dated 25.02.2016, and he was subjected to the prescribed medical examination and declared fit.
Thereafter, he was directed to undergo initial training in the Divisional Trafic Center at Dharward, commencing from 17.06.2016. The applicant's request for retirement was also accepted, vide letter, dated 02.06.2016, wherein it was communicated that he shall retire voluntarily with effect from 17.06.2016. While so, a Memo, dated 16.06.2016, was 3 OA No.310/00121/2023 issued stating that the voluntary retirement LARSGESS Scheme was kept pending until further advice and, subsequently the impugned order, dated 21/22/09.2016, was issued indicating that acceptance of the request of the applicant for voluntary retirement under the said Scheme was kept in abeyance. Thereafter, the applicant was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for imposition of a major penalty, vide a Charge Sheet, dated 15.12.2016, and, as a result, compulsorily retired from Railway Service with effect from 05.10.2018, with full settlement benefits, thereby depriving his son of the appointment under LARSGESS Scheme.
Pursuant to the law settled on the LARSGESS Scheme, a representation, dated 02.12.2020, was made out, but no avail, and, hence, this Original Application.
3. Heard M/s, Ratio Legis, the learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. R.S. Krishnaswamy, the fearned counsel for the respondents, and perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record.
4, When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents informed that the present issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme court of India which could not be disproved by the applicant's counsel.
1 4 OA No.310/00121/20235. It is to be mentioned here that similar matter was covered under OA No.523 of 2020 which was dismissed by us, on 21.12.2023. The relevant ~ portions of the order are extracted as hereunder:
"8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the there is no vested legal right to the applicant's son to be appointed under the LARSGESS Scheme. Also, the said scheme has been terminated w.e.f. 27.10.2017. As such, the scheme itself is non-existent, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Kala Singh's case, wherein the scheme was declared as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supréme Cowt ~~ further observed that the Scheme provided an avenue for backdoor entry into service and was contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution which guarantees equal opportunity in public employment. The above observations were reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their subsequent decision, dated 25.01.2022, in Civil Appeal No. 294 of 2022. Therefore, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has also set aside the orders passed by this Tribumal.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in support of his arguments. He has also relied upon the order, dt. 15.09.2023, of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No. 3001 of 2018 in the case of the Union of India and aur Vs. V. Ramamurthy and anr, wherein the order, dt.09.08.2016, passed by this Tribunal, in OA No. 739/2015, was set aside. Para 3 of the said order reads thus, "3. According to the learned counsel appearing. for the petitioners, when the first respondent was accommodated in the supernumerary post with effect from 24.02.2011 based on the medical certificate issued by the competent authority and kept under medically decategorised list by protecting his pay and allowances in terms of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and was also allowed to continue. in service, he cannot 5 OA No.310/00121/2023 seek for his son's appointment under the LARSGESS Scheme at this point of time when he had already retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation. In addition thereto, the learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the = iw decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railways and others v. A.Nishanth George, (2022) 11 SCC 678 and in Union of India and others v.
Bhagwan Deen and another, AIR 2022 SC 1714, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the Scheme itself was terminated by the Union of India on 05.10.2019 and the Court has since then consistently refused to accept, acknowledge and uphold any right flowing from the provisions of the Scheme. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in issuing a direction to the petitioners to consider the request of the first respondent seeking appointment for his son under the said Scheme."
10. It is to be noted that, as observed above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the LARSGESS Scheme itself was unconstitutional and struck down the same and the Railway Board has also terminated the said scheme. The same has been reiterated and observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No. 3001 of 2018. It is to be noted that the mere fact that the applicant's request for appointment of his ward under the LARSGESS Scheme was forwarded does not give any right to the applicant to claim appointmént and his request was rightly rejected.
11]. In view of the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and considering the fact that the LARSGESS Scheme itself is non-existent, we cannot give any such direction to the respondents for appointment of the applicant's son. Since, there is no merit in the matter; no interference is called for in this OA.
12. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.'
6. It is clear that the LARSGESS Scheme provided an avenue of backdoor entry into service for certain wards of serving employees of the Railways, without undergoing the competitive selection process consistent with the requirements, of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
te 6 '- OANo.310/00121/2023 - A conscious decision has been taken by the Union of India to terminate the Scheme, with effect from 27.10.2017, as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Ministry of Railways has also discontinued the said Scheme w.e.f. 27.10.2017.
7. Jn the above circumstances and following the order, dated 21.12.2023, passed by us, in OA No.523 of 2020; and * taking' itito consideration the fact that the LARSGESS Scheme itself is non-existent, we cannot give any such direction to the respondents for appointment of the applicant's son. Since, there is no merit in the matter; no interference is called for in this OA.
8. The OA is dismissed, accordingly. No order as to costs ce I RRO ae mee mm a, RAE mt = TS