Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Jagdish vs M/O Railways on 25 October, 2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-4202/2016
MA-810/2017
Reserved on : 22.10.2018.
Pronounced on : 25.10.2018.
Hon'ble Ms. Praveen Mahajan, Member (A)
Sh. Jagdish, 59 years
S/o late Sh. Shri Chander Keyman,
Under Sr Section Engineer (P.Way),
Railway Station Safido,
(Haryana)
R/o VPO-Mallar, Tehsil-Safidi
Distt. Jind. .... Applicant
(through Sh. K.K. Bajpayee for Ms. Meenu Mainee, Advocate)
Versus
Union of India : Through
1. Secretary,
Railway Board,
Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
3. Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway,
State Entry Road, New Delhi.
4. Sr. Section Engineer,
Northern Railway,
Safido (Haryana). .... Respondents
(through Sh. K.K. Sharma, Advocate)
2 OA-4202/2016, MA-810/2017
ORDER
Briefly stated, the facts of the current O.A. are that the applicant was initially appointed as a Keyman on 30.09.1987 and was working under Sr. Section Engineer (P.Way), Safido (Haryana).
2. The Railway Board issued a Scheme called "Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff"
(LARSGESS) in terms of which the safety category staff having qualifying service of 20 years and within the age group of 50 to 57 years may apply for voluntary retirement from service and one of their wards will be given guaranteed appointment in railways.
3. The applicant, who was working as a Keyman was a safety category because the applicant was responsible for upkeep of the railway track. As alleged, the applicant was covered by the aforesaid Scheme as he had the requisite service and was within the age group prescribed and belonged to safety category. He submitted an application on the prescribed format in July, 2012 as per the aforesaid Scheme personally in the office of DRM to the concerned staff, to which there was no response. The applicant submitted another representation on 21.01.2013 in the DRM's office, New Delhi requesting for voluntary retirement and appointment of his son (Suresh Kumar) who also had fulfilled the requisite conditions. There was no response inspite of reminder sent by the applicant. The 3 OA-4202/2016, MA-810/2017 applicant's son submitted a representation under RTI on 08.9.2015, which too was not responded to. The applicant attended DRM's office and was told that he did not have 20 years regular service, which is a pre-condition for eligibility. The applicant states that the said ground given by the DRM's office was incorrect as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, A.P. and Anr. Vs. Sheikh Abdul Khader, (WP- 10837/2001) on 23.06.2003 in which it has been laid down that "period during which an employee was working as a temporary status holder, full period will be taken as qualifying service and not 50% as was the earlier procedure." It was also held that "the period prior to acquiring temporary status will also be treated as qualifying service for pensionary benefits to the extent of 50%." The said judgment, it is mentioned, has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of judgments. The applicant, therefore, submitted a detailed representation to the respondents on 02.12.2015 in which he stated that he had submitted an application in July, 2012 and again on 22nd July, 2013 for voluntary retirement and appointment of his son as per the Scheme, but no decision has been communicated to him although he had qualified the written test held on 28.11.2013. The applicant submitted another representation through Sarpanch, Gram Panchyat Safido to the Railway Minister in which he stated 4 OA-4202/2016, MA-810/2017 that his application for voluntary retirement has been rejected only on the ground of clerical mistake so far as the period of service is concerned, which is against the law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Sheikh Abdul Khader (supra). The applicant submits that rejection of his application under the Scheme is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.
4. Aggrieved, the applicant in the current O.A. has sought the following reliefs:-
"(i)That this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the impugned orders.
(ii) That this Hon'ble Tribunal may also be graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to work out the service period of the applicant correctly as per law and accept the voluntary retirement of the applicant and offer an appointment to his son as per the Scheme.
(iii)Pass any other or further order which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iv)That the cost of the proceedings may kindly be granted in favour of the applicant and against the respondents."
5. The applicant has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA-665/2011 (Shri Manash Sarkar Vs. UOI & Ors.) dated 17.01.2012.
6. In reply, the respondents have taken a preliminary objection that the current application is false, frivolous and based on conjecture and surmises and deserves to be dismissed. It is further stated that the case pertains to LARGESS and there is no record 5 OA-4202/2016, MA-810/2017 available regarding submission of LARGESS application in 01/2012 as the applicant has mentioned. The applicant has retired from railway service on 31.07.2016 and did not fulfill the condition of qualifying service of 20 years on applying date of LARGESS.
7. I have carefully gone through the record and considered rival submissions.
8. The Constitutional validity of the LARSGES Scheme came up before various Benches of this Tribunal, including the Principal Bench, New Delhi, and the Scheme was quashed by the Principal Bench by holding that the same is unconstitutional. However, the said decision was set aside and remanded back by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on technical grounds. Similar is the situation with certain other Bench decisions on the validity of the Scheme.
9. On a reference, a Full Bench of this Tribunal in OA-1540/2013, dated 07.08.2015 in R. Krishna Rao vs. Union of India & Others, upheld the legality and validity of the LARSGES Scheme.
10. It is brought to my notice that in CWP No.7714/2016, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh by its judgment dated 27.04.2016 in Kala Singh and Others vs. Union of India & Others by holding that the LARSGES Scheme does not stand the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and that the 6 OA-4202/2016, MA-810/2017 policy is a device evolved by the Railways to make back-door entries in public employment and brazenly militate against equality in public employment. The Railway authorities were directed to revisit the Scheme before making any appointment, keeping in view the principles of equal opportunity and elimination of monopoly in holding public employment.
11. The SLP (C) No.4482/2017 filed against the decision in Kala Singh & Others (supra) was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by its Order dated 06.03.2017. Thereafter, the Review Application No. RA-CW-330/2017, dated 14.07.2017 filed by the Railways in Kala Singh & Others (supra) before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana was also dismissed on 14.07.2017. The applicant has failed to show any decision of any Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court where the validity of LARSGES Scheme was upheld.
12. It is relevant to note that an identical Scheme like LARSGESS, framed for the benefit of the employees of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, was declared to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, and the said decision was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court by its Order dated 17.04.2017 in SLP-11566/2017 (Telangana Boggu Gani Karmika Sangam vs. K. Satish Kumar and Others).
7 OA-4202/2016, MA-810/2017
13. In the circumstances and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Telangana Boggu Gani Karmika Sangham (supra) and for the aforesaid reasons, the present OA is dismissed being devoid of merit. MA-810/2017 filed by respondents for deletion of respondent No.1 from the array of party respondents accordingly stands disposed of. No costs.
(Praveen Mahajan) Member (A) /vinita/