Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Laxman Singh vs Union Of India (2024:Rj-Jd:39367-Db) on 21 September, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:39367-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15247/2024
Laxman Singh S/o Lal Singh, Aged About 36 Years, Teu Post
Sudsar, Tehsil Sri Dungargarh, District Bikaner (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through General Manager, Northern
Western Railway (Hq), Jaipur.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern-Western
Railway, Bikaner
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern-Western
Railway, Bikaner-334001.
4. The Station Master, Northern-Western Railway, Nal,
Bikaner
5. Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Northern-
Western Railway, Bikaner
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhanwar Singh
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order 21/09/2024 Per, Kuldeep Mathur, J.
The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner- Laxman Singh for assailing the order dated 30.05.2023 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'learned Tribunal' for short) whereby the original application no.290/00081/2020 filed by the petitioner claiming benefit of appointment under the Liberalised Active (Downloaded on 26/09/2024 at 08:42:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:39367-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-15247/2024] Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (LARSGESS) was dismissed.
2. The father of the petitioner was working under safety category with Indian Railways. On 30.08.2012, the petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment under category Grade-D of the LARSGESS Scheme. The respondents- Railway vide order dated 23.07.2013 declared petitioner ineligible for Railway service as he was convicted vide order dated 07.10.2006 for the offences punishable under Rajasthan Excise Act. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2013 filed O.A. No.504/2013 before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties and vide order dated 29.09.2016 directed respondents- Railways to reconsider the case of the applicant keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Avtar Singh v. Union of India (SLP (c) No.20525/2011)". The learned counsel submitted that the respondents- Railways after reconsidering the candidature of the petitioner passed an order dated 22.03.2017 stating therein that his father Shri Lal Singh did not remain an employee of prescribed safety category covered under the LARSGESS Scheme since 31.07.2012 and thereafter he has been absorbed in alternative post of Helper/Electrician as such his claim for getting appointment under the LARSGESS Scheme upon retiring of his father, who has already attained the age of 57 years 6 months is not sustainable.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 22.03.2017 the petitioner preferred O.A. No.290/00081/2020 before learned (Downloaded on 26/09/2024 at 08:42:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:39367-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-15247/2024] Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal without considering the correctness and validity of the order dated 22.03.2017 dismissed the O.A. simply on the ground that LARSGESS Scheme has been discontinued by the Railways w.e.f. 06.03.1990 and a decision has been taken that no further appointment should be made under the said Scheme. It was contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the candidature of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected by the respondents- Railways vide order dated 22.03.2017, the original application filed by him could not have been rejected on the ground that the LARSGESS Scheme has been discontinue particularly when the petitioner had already agitated the issue regarding the illegal denial of his appointment under the LARSGESS Scheme way back in the year 2013 itself by way of filing O.A. No.504/2013 before the learned Tribunal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
5. Indisputably, the respondents- Railways had taken a conscious decision on 06.03.2019 to terminate the LARSGESS Scheme and to decide that no further appointment should be made under the scheme. It is also not in dispute that father of the petitioner- Shri Lal Singh had served the respondents- Railways till he attained the age of superannuation. As such the petitioner did not remain eligible for appointment under the LARSGESS Scheme.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Abhishek Kumar Jha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (c) No.1407/2019)" while dealing with the issue regarding extension of benefit under the LARSGESS Scheme was pleased to observe that once this Court has refused to accept similar petition filed (Downloaded on 26/09/2024 at 08:42:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:39367-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-15247/2024] under Article 32 of the Constitution of India on the premises that once the scheme itself was withdrawn, no benefit whatsoever including one of consideration of representation could be offered to any of the persons claiming thereunder.
7. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Manjeet and Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (Writ Petition (c) No.78/2021)" while rejecting the request for extending the benefit of the LARSGESS Scheme to the petitioner was pleased to observe as under:-
"Thus a conscious decision has been taken by the Union of India to terminate the Scheme. This has been noticed in the order of this Court dated 06th March, 2019, which has been extracted above. While taking this decision on 05th March 2019, the Union of India had stated that where wards had completed all formalities prior to 27 th October 2017 (the date of termination of the scheme) and were found fit, since the matter was pending consideration before this Court, further instructions would be issued in accordance with the directions of this Court. Noticing the above decision, this Court, in its order dated 06th March, 2019, specifically observed that since the scheme stands terminated and is no longer in existence, nothing further need be done in the matter. The scheme provided for an avenue of a back door entry into the services of the railways. This would be fundamentally at odds with Article 16 of the Constitution. The union government has with justification discontinued the scheme. The petitioners can claim neither a vested right nor a legitimate expectations under such a scheme. All claims based on the scheme must now be closed.
In view of the above factual background, we are not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32. The grant to reliefs to the petitioner would only enable them to seek a back door entry contrary to the orders of this Court. The Union of India has correctly terminated the Scheme and that decision continues to stand."
8. In that view of the matter, the order dated 30.05.2023 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench (Downloaded on 26/09/2024 at 08:42:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:39367-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-15247/2024] in O.A. No.290/00081/2020 does not call for any indulgence of this Court and is upheld. The writ petition stands dismissed.
9. No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J 10-himanshu/-
(Downloaded on 26/09/2024 at 08:42:49 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)