Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Chandrasekharan.C vs Union Of India on 28 February, 2017
Author: P.Gopinath
Bench: P.Gopinath
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00946/2014
Tuesday, this the 28th day of February, 2017
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Ms.P.GOPINATH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Chandrasekharan.C.,
S/o.Chamy,
Works Mate (adhoc),
Office of the Deputy Chief Engineer/
Construction/Podanur Junction/
Southern Railway/Palakkad Division.
Permanent Address : Maniankadu Veedu,
Kadamkode, Karingarapully P.O.,
Palakkad District - 678 551. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Mr.T.C.Govindaswamy)
Versus
1. Union of India
represented by the General Manager,
Southern Railway, Headquarters Office,
Park Town P.O., Chennai - 600 003.
2. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Palakkad Division,
Palakkad - 678 002.
3. The Deputy Chief Engineer/Construction/
Southern Railway, Podanur Junction
Podanur - 641 023, Coimbatore District, T.N. . . . Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil)
This application having been heard on 28 th February 2017, the
Tribunal on the same day delivered the following :
ORDER
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking quashment of Annexure A-1 order whereby his request for retirement under the Liberlized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (LARSGESS) was rejected by the respondents. The applicant is a holder of regular post of Trackman carrying the scale of pay in PB-1 with grade pay Rs.1800/-. The applicant contends that Annexure A-1 is illegal and thus it is to be quashed. He seeks a direction to be issued to the respondents to consider the application submitted by him for retirement under Annexure A-2 to Annexure A-5 Scheme and to grant consequential benefits as claimed by him.
2. This request is resisted by the respondents contending as follows :
The applicant was initially engaged as Project Casual Labourer. On completion of 360 days of service he was granted temporary status as Khalasi with effect from 1.1.1986. The date of grant of temporary status was advanced to 1.1.1984. He was screened for regular absorption and posted as Gangman from 2.12.1991. While working as such he was posted as Khalasi in the scale of Rs.750-950. As there was no permanent sanctioned post in Construction Wing the applicant and others were sent on deputation basis since the post of Works Mate of Civil Engineering Department is not brought under LARSGESS Scheme. LARSGESS is an exceptional scheme formulated for certain safety posts in the Railways. The applicant is not entitled to get the benefits of the same.
3. Rejoinder has been filed by the applicant refuting the averments made in the reply statement. An additional reply statement has been filed denying the averments made in the rejoinder.
4. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the applicants' request for retirement under LARSGESS should be allowed so as to grant employment to his ward and for consequential benefits.
5. It is pointed out that the validity of the LARSGESS Scheme came up for consideration before the various Tribunals. In an identical matter a decision was rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Kala Singh & Others V. Union of India & Others (C.W.P.No.7714/2016) dated 27.4.2016. There it was held by the Hon'ble High Court as under :
' We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and are of the view that the very foundation of their claim, namely, the Safety Related Retirement Scheme, prima facie, does not stand to the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This policy is a device evolved by the Railways to make back-door entries in public employment and brazenly militates against equality in public employment.
Since we have not called upon the Railways at this stage, suffice it would be to dismiss this writ petition with a direction to the Railway Authorities that hitherto before making any appointment under the offending policy, let its validity and sustainability be revisited keeping in view the principles of equal opportunity and elimination of monopoly in holding public employment.'
6. It is also pointed out that the Principal Bench of this Tribunal at New Delhi has also passed a similar order on 23.12.2016 in O.A.No.4138/2016 and connected cases. The decision rendered earlier by a Full Bench of the Tribunal in P.Krishna Rao & Others Vs. Union of India was considered by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Kala Singh referred supra and it was held by the Principal Bench in O.A.No.4138/2016 that LARSGESS Scheme does not stand to the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and that the policy is a device evolved by the Railways to make backdoor entries in public employment and it brazenly militates against equality in public employment directed by the railway authorities. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Kala Singh (supra) and that of the Principal Bench in O.A.No.4138/2016 a similar claim made by the applicant in O.A.No.1008/2014 was dismissed by this Tribunal. It was also pointed out by the respondents that the LARSGESS Scheme is also opposed to the Constitution Bench decision laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma devi & Ors. - 2006 SCC (L&S) 753.
7. In view of what is stated above this Original Application must fail. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the SLP has been filed against the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Kala Singh's case, referred supra, and so this decision may be subject to the final decision that may be rendered in the matter pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. If the Hon'ble Supreme Court takes a decision that will be binding on all the parties and it is for the applicant then to move the authorities concerned or the Tribunal in accordance with law. With these observations this Original Application is dismissed. No costs.
(Dated this the 28th day of February, 2017)
P.GOPINATH N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
asp