Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Jag Prasad vs Union Of India on 11 May, 2022
CAT, Lucknow Bench- OA No. 92/2020-Jag Prasad & anr v. UoI & Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH
Original Application No. 332/0092/2020
Date of Order: This, the 11th day of May, 2022
HON'BLE MR. DEVENDRA CHAUDHRY, MEMBER (A),
HON'BLE MR. SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
1. Jag Prasad, aged about 61 years' son of Bhagauti Resident of
Village- Maharoo Post- Padari Tara, District- Bahraich.
2. Dilip Kumar aged about 24 years' son of Sri Jag Prasad Resident of
Village-Maharoo Post- Padari Tara, District- Bahraich.
..Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Desh Raj Singh Yadav
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway,
Gorakhpur.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager (Karmik), North Eastern Railway,
Lucknow Division, Lucknow.
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway,
Lucknow Division, Lucknow.
4. The Senior Section Engineer (P.way), North Eastern Railway,
Lucknow Division, Lucknow.
5. Assistant Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway, D.R.M. Office,
Lucknow.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Dinesh Bahadur Singh
O R D E R (ORAL)
Per Hon'ble Mr. Devendra Chaudhry, Member (A) Matter taken up. Ld respondent counsel has filed two judgment and order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 294 of 2022 with 295 of 2022 and Civil Appeal No. 2720 of 2022. The operative portions of the judgments are reproduced below:
Civil Appeal No. 294 of 2022 with 295 of 2022 "25. The Tribunal in the present case dismissed the OA filed by the respondent noting that the constitutional validity of the scheme was suspect and that moreover the father of the respondent had retired on attaining the normal age of superannuation. On a considered view of the matter, we hold that there was no error in the judgment of the Tribunal.
We have addressed in detail the history of the LARSGESS scheme and the doubt expressed on its validity by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kala Singh (supra) which eventually led to the decision of the Union government to terminate the scheme. While noticing the above backdrop, the three judge Bench of this Court in Manjit (supra) clearly noted that the Scheme provided an avenue for backdoor entry into service and was contrary to the mandate of Article 16 which guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment. In this backdrop, the Page 1 of 2 CAT, Lucknow Bench- OA No. 92/2020-Jag Prasad & anr v. UoI & Ors.
impugned judgment of the High Court of Madras issuing a mandamus for the appointment of the respondent cannot be sustained.
26. We accordingly allow the appeals and set aside the judgments of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dated (i) 21 March 2018 in WP (MD) No. 5046 of 2018; and (ii) 3 September 2019 in WP (MD) No. 6452 of 2018 and companion cases. The writ petitions filed by the respondents before the High Court shall stand dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. Pending application(s) if any stands disposed."
Civil Appeal No. 2720 of 2022"5. The aforesaid Scheme was adversely commented upon by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in its judgment dated 27.04.2016 in CWP No. 7714 of 2016. The Special Leave Petition arising therefrom was dismissed by this Court, whereafter the Scheme itself was terminated by Union of India on 05.10.2019.
6. Thereafter, various petitions came up before this Court including Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1407 of 2019 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 78 of 2021. This Court has since then consistently refused to accept, acknowledge and uphold any right flowing from the provisions of the Scheme.
7. Viewed thus, the Tribunal was not justified in passing directions in the instant matter and the High Court was in error in rejecting the challenge raised by the appellants.
8. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set-aside the view taken by the Tribunal and the High Court and dismiss Original Application No. 4320 of 2014."
2. In light of above, ld respondent counsel pleads that OA should be dismissed. Ld applicant counsel has nothing to add.
3. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed in light of the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
4. Pending MA(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
5. No costs.
(Swarup Kumar Mishra) (Devendra Chaudhry)
Member (J) Member (A)
JNS
Page 2 of 2