Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
A T Kadam vs M/O Railways on 13 November, 2018
1 O.A. No. 678/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 678/2016
Dated thislw the [3 day of WNovemba, 2018.
CORAM:- HON'BLE SHRI R. VIJAYKUMAR, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE SMT. RAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER (J)
Shri Ananda Tanaji Kadam,
Age 56 years, Working as Pointsman A
R/at At Post Nandgaon,
Tal... Nandgaon,
Dist. Nasik 423106 | ... Applicant |
Oy Advocote V-A> Magen}
Versus
1. Union of India through
The.General Manager
Centrai Railway. Head Quarters,
Central Railway, CSTM,
Mumbai. 400 OO1.
2. Divisional Railway Manager (P)
Central Railway,
Bhusawal Division, Bhusawal,
Dist. Jalgaon.425201 .. Respondents
. (by Advecote GA: Gruyar )
Reserved on :- 22.10.2018
Pronounced on:- V3 -{}- IO"
2 . O.A. No. 678/2016
ORDER
Per:- Ravinder Kaur, Member (J)
The present OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 claiming the following reliefs:
"a. This Hon'ble Tribunal may . graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case from the Respondents and after examining the same quash and set aside the list dated 04.03.2016 qua the Applicant which is at Sr. No. 13 and order dated 24.08.2016 with all consequential benefits, b. This Hon'ble Tribunal may further be. pleased hold and declare that the Applicant has completed more than 33 years of qualifying service and thus he is entitled under LARSGESS scheme with all consequential benefits.
Cc. This Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to reconsider the application dated 11.07.2015 submitted by the applicant forthwith holding that the Applicant has completed more than 33 years of qualifying service as on 01.07.2015 and consequence of which forthwith allowing him to retire under LARSGESS scheme and issue appointment order to his son under LARSGESS scheme with all consequential benefits. . d. Costs. of the application be provided for.
e. Any other and further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems Fit in the nature and circumstances of the case be passed."
2. The facts are' that applicant was initiaily appointed in Central Railway as Monthly Rated Casual Labour{(MRCL) on 04.01.1978 and worked upto 18.09.1983. His services were
--
3 O.A. No. 678/2016regularized on 05.07.1984 and was appointed on. the permanent post of Gangman. His Grade Pay was 1800 excluding Grade Pay earned under MACP. It is alleged by the applicant that on perusal of service register, he came to know that service rendered by him as MRCL/Temporary Service for. the period from 04.01.1978 to 18.09.1983 was not included in the service register for the purpose of qualifying service. He made application dated 30.01.2014 for inclusion of MRCL service in the service register. Respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 16.05.2014 directed the office -to make necessary entries in the. service register of the period when the applicant worked as MRCL. It is claimed that after inclusion of 50% of service of MRCL, the applicant had completed more than 33° years of his qualifying service. In 2004, the Railway Board introduced a Liberalised Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff(LARGESS) .for the persons holding the post of Driver or Gangman. In the said "scheme the Drivers and Gangmen in the age group of 57-59 years were given option of taking retirement and for acceptance of their retirement under the scheme, employment for 4 O.A. No. 678/2016 their suitable ward. is to be considered. The other requirement is that the employee had qualified service of 33 yrs. The ward of such employee is to be considered for appointment to the lowest recruitment grade of the category from which the employee seeks retirement. It is claimed that vide Letter dated 11.09.2010, the. Railway Board extended the benefit of this scheme to other safety categories of staff with GP of Rs. 1800 per month, the qualifying service was reduced from 33 years to 20 years and the. eligibility age group was reduced to 55 to 57 years. The applicant moved an application dated 02.01.2015 for consideration of appointment to his ward under the LARSGESS scheme. While the apolicant was awaiting reply from the respondents, instead of considering his case under LARSGESS scheme, the respondents issued a list (Annexure A-8) wherein the applicant's case was illegally declared unsuitable on the ground of less qualifying service which was contrary to the certificate issued by them. Later on, the applicant submitted 'fresh application dated 11.07.2015 and sought application of LARSGESS scheme for considering his second ward in the 5 O.A. No. 678/2016 second cycle of 2015 but this application was also found not suitable under LARSGESS scheme. Applicant made representation dated 06.04.2016 followed. by another representation | dated 15.04.2015. Since no response was given by respondents to his both the representations, the applicant approached this Tribunal vide present OA.
3.0 When the case was called today for admission, the learned counsels for the parties were heard and the case records including reply filed on behalf of the respondents have been carefully perused.
4. On the claims for grant of LARSGESS, we have recently decided some cases including OA No.2084/2014 of Suresh Daulat Tayade Vs. Union of India decided on 14.04.2018 by following the previous decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Chandigarh which had held that the scheme itself was unconstitutional. 'the decision dated 14.07.2018 in OA No.7714/2016 of the Chandigarh Bench had been challenged in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which upheld the orders of | the Tribunal. The respondents then filed an SLP before the Apex 6 7 O.A. No. 678/2016 Court which upheld the decision of the High court and dismissed the SLP giving liberty to the petitioners-Railways to ask for review from the concerned High Court. The Review Application No.330/2017 in WP(C) No.7714/2016 was considered by the Hon'ble Haigh Court and dismissed by Orders dated 14.07.2017 with the following observations.
"This application has been moved by Railways seeking recall / review of the court order dated 27.04.2016 wherein this Court made some prima facie adverse comments on the validity, legality and properity of "Liberalized Active Retirement scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff" (LARSGESS), 2010" and directed the Railway authorities to re-visit the said policy keeping in view the principles of equal opportunity and elimination of monopoly in public employment before making further appointments thereunder.
lt is pertinent to mention that under the said policy, Railway employees employed as Safety Staff are entitled to seek voluntary retirement and seek appointment of their wards as per their eligibility. This Court found that -- such a policy was prima facie violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the necessary directions were issued.
We 'have heard learned senior counsel for the respondents at a considerable length. It is true that no notice was issued and the Railway Authorities were not heard while 7 -- O.A. No. 678/2016 making prima facie observations but Fact of the matter is that the only direction issued by this Court was to re-visit the offending policy keeping in view the principles of equal opportunity on public employment before further appointments are made. Such a direction was necessitated keeping 'in view the mandate of the Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC il.
No case to review / recall the order dated 27.04.2016 is made out, Dismissed."
5. In view of the above directions and the liberty granted to the Railway to re-visit the Scheme, the legal position is settled and_ the present OA cannot proceed further to decide the matter on merits unless the Scheme itself is re- visited and again promulgated in a form that is not ultra vires of the Constitution.
6. In these circumstances, the OA 1s
--
disposed of, granting liberty to the applicants to "approach the appropriate forum in the Railways for re-visiting the LARSGESS Scheme and to consider his grievances. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Ravinder Kaur) (R. Vijaykumar) Member (J) | Member (A) g.m.
a '| ae
--s\'