Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Amar Singh vs Union Of India Through The on 17 July, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No. 3971/2012 MA No.3378/2012 Reserved On: 08.07.2013 Pronounced on:17:07.2013 HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. SHEKHAR AGARWAL, MEMBER (A) 1. Amar Singh S/o Shri Jaithu R/o H.No.7, Village Bhojpur Mithoni, Urf Sikoi, The. & Distt. Muradabad. 2. Harswroop S/o Shri Kashi, R/o V.P.O. Nanhera, Alyapur, District Amroha (UP. 3. Hasankha S/o Shri Avag R/o Hasampur Choraha, Dingarpur Road, Azad Nagar, Pakbada, Murabadad. 4. Chokhey Singh S/o Shri Hemraj Singh R/o Railway Quarter No.EC, Emli Line, Muradabad. 5. Manohar S/o Shri Ram Lal R/o V.P.O. Machariya, Police Station Katghar, District Muradabad. 6. Bhagirath S/o Shri Tathu R/o Village/Sultanpur Fleda, Post Fatehpur Bishnoi, Muradabad. 7. Surender Pal S/o Parmeshwari Singh R/o Chek Fazelpur (Chauhano wali melk) Post Lakdi, Muradabad. 8. Narain Singh S/o Shri Devraj V.P.O. Karaundi, Thana Naugaon Sadat, District & Tehsil Amroha. 9. Munnakha S/o Shri Roshan Kha R/o V.P.O. Karaundi, Thana Naugaon Sadat District and Tehsil Amroha. 10. Netram S/o Shri Inder Singh R/o Line Par Majhola Chowk Street No.1, Moradabad-244001 (UP). 11. Meghnath S/o Shri Mahaghar Nand R/o Quarter No.W.W6/M, Line Par R.P.F., South Colony, Muradabad. 12. Sompal Singh S/o Late Shri Chottay R/o Quarter No.SE-11/K, Linepar, Rly. South Colony, Muradabad. Applicants (By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Sharma). Versus 1. Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Railway Board, Ministry of Railway, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 4 The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Moradabad Division, Moradabad (UP). ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Shailendra Tiwari) ORDER
Shri G. George Paracken:
The grievance of the Applicants is that the Respondent-Northern Railway Headquarter have denied them the benefits envisaged in Safety Related Retirement Scheme (SRRS for short) issued by the Railway Board vide RBE No.4/2004 [No.E(P&A)/I-2001/RT-2(KW) dated 2.1.2004] initially applicable to Drivers and Gangmen and later extended to other safety categories of staff with grade pay of Rs.1800/- per month vide RBE No.131/2010 [No.E(P&A)/I-2010/RT-2(KW) dated 11.9.2010] by giving wrong interpretation to them vide their Office Letter No.220-E/262/LARGSGESS/Rectt./Pt.I/2010 dated 25.10.2011.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicants are working in different posts in Moradabad Division under the Northern Railway. The Ministry of Railways have introduced the SRRS for their Drivers and Gangmen vide RBE No.4/2004 [No.E(P&A)/I-2001/RT-2(KW) dated 2.1.2004] recognizing the fact that the categories of Drivers and Gangmen work in conditions in which fatigue sets in them earlier than in the case of staff who work indoors or within station limits or in depots and workshops, those of them in the age group of 50 to 57 and completed 33 years of qualifying service were made eligible to seek early retirement from service and on accepting their request, one of their wards was also made eligible to seek a suitable employment. The cut off date for reckoning the eligibility of the employee under the Scheme was fixed as 30th of June of the respective year and the applications were accepted once in a year. There are various other conditions to be fulfilled to become eligible under the Scheme but they are not relevant for this case and, therefore, they are not mentioned here. Later on, vide RBE No.131/2010 dated 11.09.2010, the Railway Board modified the SRRC with the nomenclature as Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (LARSGESS for short)and extended the aforesaid benefits to other safety categories of staff with the grade pay of Rs.1800/-with reduced qualifying service of 20 years and with the lower age group of 50-57 years. However, the condition of qualifying service of 33 years and age group of 55-57 years for drivers remained unchanged.All other terms and conditions of the SRRS also remained unchanged.The Northern Railway Headquarters Office, vide their letter dated 11.11.2010, forwarded copies of the LARSGESS to all the Divisional Railway Managers working under them directing the latter to invite applications from eligible staff in the prescribed format and forward them by 27.12.2010 after completing the formalities including approval of the ADRM/CWM. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter, the office of the DRM Moradabad, under whom the Applicants are working, vide their letter dated 18.11.2010 directed all the officers of the Divisions etc. working under them to give wide publicity to the aforesaid Scheme and to forward the applications received by them by 15.12.2010 for onward transmission to Headquarters. Accordingly, the applicants submitted their applications and the DRM forwarded them to the Headquarters within the stipulated time. Thereafter, the Applicants and their wards have been awaiting necessary instructions/orders including the date and other details of the qualifying exam to be conducted for the wards for appointment to the concerned post depending upon their qualifications. But the Respondents did not take action on those applications. The particulars of the Applicants and their wards in this case are as under:-
Name of employee Post Date of birth Name of ward Date of birth of ward Amar Singh H. Khallasi 15.2.54 Niraj 18.9.90 Har Swaroop Porter 2.2.54 Sunil Kumar 15.3.84 Hasan Khan H. Khallasi 8.6.54 Nizabal Hussain 23.1.86 Chokhay Singh H. Khallasi 5.8.53 Manohar H. Khallasi 1.154 Dharma Pal 8.7.84 Bhagirath Trackman 10.11.53 Sunil Kumar 10.07.90 Surinder Pal H. Khallasi 1.9.53 Parkeep Kr. 2.6.87 Munna Khan H. Khallasi 23.1.54 Shamshad 8.6.82 Net Ram H. Khallasi 7.10.53 Sanjay Kr. 10.1.84 Megh Nath H. Khallasi 3.4.54 Rajesh Nanda 16.3.1992 Som Pal Singh H. Khallasi 1.6.64 Anil Kumar 1.8.83
3. Later, the Railway Board considered both SRRS and LARSGESS together again vide RBE No.42/2011 [No.E(P&A)I-2010/RT-2 dated 29.03.2011] and decided to process the retirement/recruitment cases twice in a year as per the following time schedule and for the calendar year 2011 and to start the same from July, 2011:-
Time schedule
(a) Ist half January - June
(i)Cut off date for reckoning eligibility : Ist January of the employee and his ward
(ii)Last date for receiving the : 31st January applications
(iii)Scrutinizing the applications : Ist February to 28th/29th February
(iv) Last day for withdrawal :28th/29th February
(v) Conducting of Physical Test/ :Ist March to 30th Written Test etc. April
(vi)2nd chance to failure in written : Upto 31st May Test in first chance giving a Gap of 20-30 days
(vii)Medical exam. acceptance of : Ist to 30th June Retirement/joining the job by the wards
(b) 2nd half July - December
(i)Cut off date for reckoning eligibility: Ist July of the employee and his ward
(ii) Last date for receiving the : 31st July applications
(iii)Scrutinizing the applications : Ist to 31St August
(iv) Last day for withdrawal : 31st August
(v) Conducting of Physical Test/ :Ist Sept. to 31st Written Test etc. October
(vi)2nd chance to failure in written : Upto 3oth November Test in first chance giving a Gap of 20-30 days
(vii)Medical exam. acceptance of : Ist to 31st December Retirement/joining the job by the wards.
4. Again, vide letter No.E(P&A)I-2011/RT-6 dated 20.09.2011 addressed to the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi, the Railway Board clarified that the eligibility/suitability of the employee/ward is to be adjudged in accordance to the instructions contained in their letters No.E(P&A)I-2010/RT-2 dated 29.03.2011 and 11.09.2010. Thereafter, the Northern Railway Headquarters, vide their letter No. 220-E/262/LARGSGESS/Rectt./Pt.I/2010 dated 25.10.2011 addressed to the Divisional Railway Managers, Work Shop Managers etc. made a comparative statements of the SRRS and the LARSGESS. One of such comparative position was with regard to cut off date for eligibility to apply for the said Scheme. It was stated therein that while the original SRRS envisaged 30th June of the respective year as the cut off date for eligibility, the LARSGESS envisaged Ist January and Ist July of the respective year (twice in a year) beginning from 2011 as the cut off date. It was also observed in the said comparison that Northern Railway had already called for applications from Divisions/Units under the SRRS, LARSGESS etc. in the year 2010 on 11.11.2010. Further, according to the said letter dated 25.10.2011, in view of the clarification given by the Railway Board in its aforesaid letters dated 29.03.2011 and 20.09.2011 amended the ongoing process. For the sake of convenience, the aforesaid letter dated 25.10.2011 is reproduced as under:-
NORTHERN RAILWAY Head Quarter Office, Baroda House, New Delhi.
Dated:25.10.2011 No.220-E/262/LARSGESS/Rectt./Pt.-I/2010 Divisional Railway Manager, DILFZR, LKO, MB & UMB Work Shop Manager, AMV-LKO, CB-LKO & JUDW.
Sub:- Recruitment of wards of safety category staff, having Grade Pay Rs.1800 under Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (LARSGESS) for the year 2010.
Ref:-Railway Boards letter No.E(P&A) I-2010/RT-2 dated 11.9.2010, 29.3.2011 & E(P&A) I-2011/RT-6 dated 20.9.2011.
In reference to Railway Boards letter cited above, detailed comparative position of the Safety, Related Retirement Scheme (SRRS) & Liberalized. Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff is summarized as under:-
1. Date of issue SRRS scheme for Drivers & Gangmen vide Railway Boards letter No.E(P&A)I-2001/RT-2(KW) dated 02.01.2004 LARSGESS scheme for Driver and prescribed safety category staff having GP Rs.1800/- vide Railway Boards letter No.E(P&A)I-2010/RT-2 dated 11.9.2010
2. Applicable from Date of issue as above Year not mentioned in the Railway Boards letter dated 11.9.2010
3. Cut off date for eligibility 30th June of respective year vide Rly. Bds letter No.E(P&A) I-2001/RT-2 (KW) dated 02.01.2004. 1st January and 1st July of respective year (Twice in a year) vide Rly Bds letter No.E(P&A) I-2010/RT-2 dated 29.3.2011 beginning from 2011. Rly. Bd. has further clarified the date of effective vide letter dt.20.9.11. However NR has called applications from Divs./units under this scheme in the year 2010 on 11.11.2010.
4. Eligibility age limit of staff Driver-55 to 57 yrs.
Gangman-55 to 57 yrs. Driver-55 to 57 yrs.
Group D-50 to 57 yrs.
5. Qualifying service min. Driver-33 yrs.
Gangman 33 yrs Drivers-33 yrs.
Group D-20 yrs.
6. Mode of Recruitment As per direct recruitment through RRB/RRC As per direct recruitment through RRB/RRC
7. Assessment Committee Driver-3HOD Gangman-3 HOD Officers committee at Zonal level Driver-3SAG Officers committee of HQ level Group D-3JAG members committee of Division level
8. Essential Qualification for recruitment Driver-10th pass+ITI in prescribed Trade Gangman-8th class pass Driver-10th pass+ITI in prescribed Trade Group D-10th pass or ITI from 09.12.2010 vide Rly. Bds letter No.E (NG)-II/2009/RR-I/10/Pt. dated 09.12.2010.
9. Last date of submission applications 31st July of respective year vide Rly Bds letter No.E(P&A)I-2001/RT-2(KW) dated 02.01.2004 31st January & 31st July (Twice in a year) vide Railway Bds letter No.E(P&A)I-2010/RT-2 dt. 29.3.2011 As of now Divisions have been advised to conduct Physical Efficient Test (PET) vide letter No.220-E/262/LARSGESS/Rectt./Pt.-1/2010 dt. 25.5.11 which is under progress.
Now, in view of the clarification given by the Rly.Bd. vide their letter No.E(P&A)I-2010/RT-2 dt. 29.3.11 and E(P&A)I-2011/RT-6 dt. 20.9.11 and difference in policy as per item no.4 & 5 above, it is proposed to amend the ongoing process by issuing directives as under.
All the applications of wards of Gangmen should now be treated on the basis of SRRS policy (taking criteria as per item no.4,5 & 8 above) Remaining applications including left over Gangmen should be considered under LARGESS as per policy mentioned above taking cut off date as 1st July 2011 and applying new criteria of education, age and QS.
PET to continue in the Divisions under both the schemes (SRRSS, LARSGESS) report of SRRS (Gangmen only) applicants to be furnished to the HQ.
Candidates successful in the PET under SRRS can take written examination in the HQ.
Candidates of LARSGESS scheme will be dealt as per instructions mentioned above.
It is advised to take action accordingly as mentioned above and intimate this office the action taken.
5. Later, the Respondent No.4, vide its letter dated 28.09.2012, rejected the claim of the Applicants for granting the benefit of LARSGESS by declaring the wards of the Applicants/the Applicant themselves overaged on the ground that the Northern Railway Headquarter vide the impugned order dated 25.10.2011 amended the ongoing process with the revised cut off date as 01.07.2011 and on that date they have already crossed the prescribed age limit of 57 years.
6. According to the learned counsel for the Applicants Shri Yogesh Sharma, the aforesaid interpretation given by the Respondents to LARSGESS is absolutely wrong. He has stated that it was clearly mentioned in the LARSGESS itself that it is not a new Scheme but it is only an extension of the earlier Scheme of 2004 applicable to the categories of Drivers and Gangmen and as per the order dated 11.9.2010, the benefit of the Scheme has been extended to the categories other than Drivers and Gangmen who fulfilled the eligibility criteria as of age on 25.12.2010. He has, therefore, submitted that the applications of those candidates who have submitted their application as per their circular dated 11.09.2010, should be considered by taking cut off date as December, 2010 and they cannot be rejected. He has also stated that the Respondent No.2 has rightly issued the order dated 11.11.2010 circulating the Scheme and as a one time measure extended the last date for receipt of applications for the year 2010 to 27.12.2010. He has also pointed out that letter dated 11.09.2010 was issued after the original cut off date and that was the reason that as a one time measure, the last date for receipt of application was extended up to 27.12.2010 instead of 11.11.2010. Shri Yogesh Sharma has also submitted that the letter dated 29.03.2011 and letter dated 25.10.2011 issued by the Railway Board are clarificatory in nature and they do not take away the right which had accrued to the employee by the main order. In this regard he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Director General of Posts and Others Vs. B. Ravindran and Another 1997 (1) SCC 641 wherein it has been held as under:-
14. It is not in dispute that the original order for fixation of pay of re- employed pensioners was contained in OM dated 25/11/1958. In the matter of fixation of pay of such re-employed pensioners the first step required to be taken was to fix his initial pay at the minimum stage of scale of pay prescribed for the post on which he was re-employed. The next step to be taken was to find out whether his pay thus fixed plus pension (including other pensionary benefits) exceeded the pay which he drew before his retirement or Rs. 3000. If it exceeded either of those limits then necessary adjustment was to be made in the pay by reducing it below the minimum stage so as to ensure that the total pay including pension was within the prescribed limits. If the initial pay plus the pension was found to be less, then it was to be regarded as a case of undue hardship and his pay was required to be fixed at higher stage by allowing one increment for each year of service which the officer had rendered before retirement in a post not lower than in which he was re-employed. However, when it was noticed that this formula was not fair and just in cases of pensioners who retired at an early age that is before 55 years, the government in relaxation of the policy contained in the 1958 order decided to grant some benefits to such re- employed pensioners and issued an order directing that civil pension up to Rs. 10.00 per month and military pension up to Rs. 15 per month should be - ignored in fixing pay on re-employment. Thus while totalling up the initial pay and the pension for the purpose of finding out whether the pensioner on re-employment was likely to get more or less than what he was getting earlier, Rs. 10 in case of civil pensioners and Rs. 15 in case of military pensioners, were to be ignored. In other words the amount of pension to be added to the initial pay was to be reduced to that extent. Thereafter his pay was to be adjusted depending upon whether the pensioner would thus get more or less on his re-employment. This relaxation was obviously in the nature of a modification of the earlier policy. As narrated above the said limits to be ignored were increased from time to time and by the OM dated 8/2/1983 in case of ex-servicemen, the limit was raised to Rs. 250 in case of service officers and in case of personnel belonging to (sic below) Commissioned Officer ranks the entire pensionary benefits were to be ignored. Though in the beginning, according to the original policy contained in the 1958 order, the entire pension was to be added to the initial pay to find out whether it gave unintended advantage or caused undue hardship to the re-employed pensioner, the position did not remain the same after the passing of the orders in 1963 and 1964 and thereafter. The modifications thus made by the 1963 and 1964 orders were given legal status by amending Articles 521 and 526 of the Civil Service Regulations accordingly.
7. He has also relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Parkash Chand Vs. U.O.I. and Others 2005 (2) ATJ 617 and the relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
19. In the first instance, it must be stated that the clarification, in this process, supplants the ACP Scheme. We have already referred to above that the state is at liberty to amend the same in accordance with law, but by clarification, the amendment cannot be effected. The clarification, by no stretch of imagination is clarifying any ambiguity because we have already referred to above that the language is plain and clear of the Scheme and the clarification are modifying the Scheme and supplanting something new, that is not permissible in law.
8. The Applicants have, therefore, sought the following reliefs in this OA:-
(i) That the Honble Tribual may graciously be pleased to pass an order declaring to the effect that the whole action of the respondents rejecting the request of the applicants for seeking the benefits of Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employee for Safety Staff (LARSGESS) by declaring Employee Over Age by taking into account the cut off date as on 01.07.2011 is totally illegal, arbitrary, against the scheme and discriminatory and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to consider the case of the Applicants for extending the benefit of Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employee for Safety Staff (LARSGESS) by taking into the cut off date as on 11.09.2010 or June 2010 or the last date of submission of application, i.e., 27.12.2010 as per order dated 11.11.2010 passed by the GM(P), New Delhi.
(ii) That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the Para 2 of the clarification dated 29.03.2011 passed by the Railway Board and consequently, pass an order of quashing the clarification dated 25.10.2011 by which the Respondents changed the cut off date as July, 2011 even for the employees who have submitted their application till 27.10.2010, i.e., the extended date of 2010.
(iii) That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the order dated 28.09.2012 and the list in which the name of the Applicants have been included for rejecting their applications.
(iv) Any other relief which the Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the Applicants along with the costs of litigation.
9. The Respondents have filed their reply. The learned counsel for the Respondents, Shri Shailendra Tiwary, has invited our attention to the letter dated 29.03.2011 issued by the Railway Board to all the General Manages regarding LARSGESS covering Drivers, Gangmen and other safety categories with grade pay of Rs.1800/-. According to the said letter, the employees Federations had raised demands for constitution of a lower level Assessment Committee at Divisions, processing of retirement/recruitment once in a year etc. under the LARSGESS. After due consideration of the aforesaid demand of the Federations, the Board decided to hold retirement/recruitment process under the LARSGESS in respect of all the safety categories of staff including Gangmen in grade pay of Rs.1800/- per month and Drivers/Loco Pilots twice in a year and fixed the time schedule for the same. By the said letter the process of retirement/recruitment has also been decided to be started from July, 2011. He has, therefore, submitted that cut off date for reckoning eligibility of the employee and the ward will hence forth be 01.11.2011 and all the earlier applications will no more be valid for the current calendar year 2011.
10. The learned counsel for the Respondents has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Tribunal in the case of Ramesh Chandra Vs. Secretary, Railway Board (OA No.1032/2011) decided on 15.03.2011. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
5. As can be seen from the conditions, as stipulated above, and more particularly condition No. (ii), acceptance of retirement is a condition precedent for the purpose of considering the case of the ward of the employee and further as per the provisions, as stipulated above, benefit of the Scheme can be extended to the persons who have put in 33 years of qualifying service and are within the age group of 55-57 years only. Admittedly, the date of birth of applicant is 10.11.1950 as per the averment made by the applicant in para 4.2 of the OA. Applicant has attained more than 60 years of age as on today and must have already retired from service, whereas the applicant who has filed OA in this Tribunal on 20.1.2011 has wrongly stated in the said para that he has only completed 50 years of age. Thus in view of the fact that applicant stands already retired from service on superannuation when the OA was filed, it is not understood on what basis the applicant has sought relief from this Tribunal to the effect that direction may be given to the respondents to accept the voluntary retirement of the applicant and give employment to his son as Electrical Khallasi/Cleaner for which the son of the applicant possesses the eligibility condition. As already stated above, the Safety Related Retirement Scheme framed by the Railway Board in respect of the Driver and Gangman stipulates recruitment of one of the wards of the employees working under the aforesaid categories in the lowest recruitment grade and fall within the age group of 55-57 years and completed 33 years of qualifying service and the ward of such an employee can be engaged only when the application for retirement under the aforesaid Scheme is accepted. It is not permissible for us to give direction to the respondents to give appointment to the applicant contrary to the policy decision. The decision taken by the respondents pursuant to the directions given by this Tribunal in OA-835/2009 (Annexure A-1), whereby the request of the applicant for giving appointment to his ward was rejected on the ground that he does not fulfill the educational qualifications meant for the post of Assistant Loco Driver based upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ram Kishan Verma (supra) is of no consequence, inasmuch as the applicant stood already retired from service.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant Shri Yogesh Sharma and the learned counsel for the Respondents Shri Shailendra Tiwary. In our considered view, the interpretation of reckoning cut off date for eligibility and the comparative position made by the Respondents with regard to the Railway Boards letters dated 02.01.2004 and 29.03.2011 are absolutely misplaced. It is seen that the SRRS was originally made applicable to only Drivers and Gangmen vide the aforesaid RBE letter dated 02.01.2004. Under the said Scheme, the Drivers and Gangmen in the age group of 50-57 years could seek retirement and if their request for retirement is accepted, their ward would be considered for employment to a suitable post. For the said purpose,it is essential that the employee concerned should have completed 33 years of qualifying service in order to become eligible for employment under the Scheme. Applications from those who propose to retire under the said Scheme were accepted only once in a year reckoning the eligibility as 30th June of the respective year. In other words, Drivers or Gangmen in the age group of 55 to 57 years and completed 33 years of service as on 30th June 2004 was eligible to avail the benefits of SRRS in the initial year of its notification. For the subsequent years, it was 30th of June of the respective years. Accordingly, under the said Scheme, the Driver or Gangmen were regularly availing of the benefits of the said Scheme. Later on, vide RBE letter dated 29.03.2011, the Respondents extended the benefits of the aforesaid Scheme to various other categories including those of the Applicants. By the said order the qualifying service has been reduced from 33 years to 20 years and the eligibility age from 55-57 years to 50-57 years. In other words, the employees seeking benefits under the extended scheme need to have only 20 years of service and they need to be in the age group of 50 to 57 years. All other conditions including the cut off date of 30th June of the respective year for submitting the applications for retirement remained unchanged. But, according to the demand of the Employees Federation, the Respondents vide RBE No.42/2011 dated 29.03.2011, the employees seeking retirement under the LARSGESS were allowed to seek such retirements twice in year as per the revised time schedule. Now the revised schedule is that those who are retiring in the first half of the year, i.e., January to June, then the cut off date for reckoning the eligibility of the concerned employee is Ist January of that year and those who are retiring in the second half of the year, i.e., July to December, the cut off date is Ist July of that year. It has also been clarified in clear terms in the order dated 29.03.2011 that the process of retirement/recruitment as per the revised schedule will start from July, 2011 for the calendar year 2011. In other words, vide the revised schedule, the cut off date of Ist July, 2011 has been made applicable only to those who were retiring during the period from July to December, 2011 and from the year 2012 onwards, those who retire during the first half of the year, the cut off date shall be the Ist January of that year and for others who retire in the second half of the year, the cut off date shall be Ist July of that year. But the said re-scheduling will not affect those who have already become eligible in terms of the RBE No.131/2010 [No.E(P&A)/I-2010/RT-2(KW) dated 11.9.2010] and applied. Therefore, all the valid applications received in terms of DRMs letter dated 18.11.2010 and the Northern Railway Headquarters letter dated 11.11.2010 fixing the cut off date for receipt of the application up to 15.12.2010/27.12.2010 are perfectly valid.
12. We, therefore, do not agree with the entirely different interpretation given by the Northern Railway Headquarter to the Scheme vide their impugned letter dated 29.03.2011 stating that the process of recruitment even in the case of Applicants who applied in terms of RBE dated 11.09.2010 also will only start from July 2011 and all the applications received up to 27.12.2010 should be rejected. Moreover, this Tribunal, has already considered this aspect in OA No. 3970/2012 Shri Raja Ram Vs. U.O.I. & Others decided on 23.4.2013. In the said OA applicant sought benefit of LARSGESS Scheme. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal disposed of the OA. As the judgment is a short one, the same is quoted below:-
This Application is directed against the order dated 19.3.2012 by which the respondents did not accept the request of the applicant for his voluntary retirement and appointment of his son as per the Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employee for Safety Staff (LARSGESS) issued by the Railway Board vide Circular dated 11.9.2010.
2. The respondents have filed their short reply wherein they have, inter alia, stated that the relief claimed by the applicant has now been granted to him by the respondents. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents Shri Shailendra Tiwari submitted a copy of respondents communication dated 5.3.2013, the relevant extracts of which are reproduced as under:-
It is advised that, Sh. Raja Ram, Trolleryman, SSE/P.Way/GGN under ADEN/DEE who has filed an O.A. No.3970/12 before the Honble CAT/NDLI (which has now be fixed for filling of Counter Reply on 2-4-2013 being a last opportunity) for seeking appointment of his ward Sh. Kamal Singh under LARSGESS scheme.
In this regard, it is stated that the claim of Sh.Raja Ram has now been considered by the Competent Authority. It has been decided by the Competent Authority to call his ward in the written test alongwith other failed candidates likely to be held shortly.
3. In view of the aforesaid, Shri Shailendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the present Application has become infructuous and the same would be dismissed accordingly.
4. The applicants counsel insisted on prescribing a time frame within which the respondents be directed to process the applicants case. We do not find any warrant for issuing any such direction as there is nothing to indicate that the respondents would not be taking timely action in the matter. Once they have taken a decision in favour of the applicant, they would be taking further necessary action accordingly.
5. Since the substantive relief claimed by the applicant herein has now been allowed by the respondents, the present Original Application no longer survives for further consideration. The same is accordingly disposed of. Needless to say, if the applicant may have any further grievance, he shall be at liberty to seek redressal thereof as per law, if so advised.
13. Consequently, we allow this OA and quash and set aside clarificatory letter dated 25.10.2011 issued by the Northern Railway Headquarter. We also quash and set aside the order dated 28.09.2012 and the list attached thereto containing the names of the Applicants whose Applications have been rejected by the Respondents. Further, we direct the respondents to process all those applications received up to 25.10.2010 in terms of the Northern Railways Headquarter letter dated 11.11.2010 and extend the benefit of LARSGESS to them. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. There shall be no order as to costs.
(MR SHEKHAR AGARWAL) (G. GEROGE PARACKEN)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Rakesh