Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Jagdish vs General Manager N C Rly on 2 August, 2021
CAT ALLAHABAD BENCH OA No 00382/2021 Jagdish and another Vs UOI
(Reserved on 23.06.2021)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Allahabad this the 2nd day of August, 2021
Present:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vijay Lakshmi, Member-J
Hon'ble Mr. Devendra Chaudhry, Member-A
Original Application No. 330/00382/2021
(U/S 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985)
1. Jagdish, aged about 56 years S/o Shri Nathu Ram R/o - Manikpur
Colony, Jhansi Road District- Gwalior Posted as Track Maintainer Grade
II in Engineering Department at Jhansi Division.
2. Rajendra Baghel aged about 29 years S/o Shri Jagdish R/o - Manikpur
Colony, Jhansi Road, District- Gwalior.
.......Applicants.
By Advocates - Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra
Shri Rajesh Kumar.
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through the General Manager, North Central Railway,
Subedarganj, Prayagraj.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi Division,
Jhansi.
3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Central Railway, Jhansi
Division, Jhansi.
......Respondents.
By Advocate: Shri Shesh Mani Mishra.
Page 1 of 9
CAT ALLAHABAD BENCH OA No 00382/2021 Jagdish and another Vs UOI
ORDER
Delivered By Hon'ble Mr. Devendra Chaudhry, Member (A) The present O.A. has been filed seeking appointment by Applicant No-2 under the LARGESS scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'Scheme') as per recommendation of Applicant No-1 who is the father of Applicant No-2 and was employed in the Railways department as Track Maintainer under Deputy Chief Engineer NCR Jhansi division.
2. Per applicants, the facts in brief are that the Applicant No-1 had applied under the Scheme for his son as per format in the year 2016 in the context of the cut-off date for the same being 01.01.2016. It is further stated that the case of the applicant was forwarded to DRM NCR Jhansi division along with another case of one Smt. Kailasha Devi and Shri Bhagwan Das vide letter dated 21.04.2016 (Annexure A-2). That, the respondents did not process the case of the applicant-1/2 in spite of the fact that the Applicant-1was posted in Jhansi division non inter-zonal transfer from Bhopal and was relieved from Bhopal division in1999.That the said application was erroneously not accepted vide letter dated 29.04.2016 (Annexure A-3). Notwithstanding, the applicant applied again in the year 2017 in light of the cut of date of 02.01.2017. However, the same was also not considered. That further, the Railway Board in compliance of the judgement of the Hon Apex Court in WP 448/2019 and WP 219 of 2019 has Page 2 of 9 CAT ALLAHABAD BENCH OA No 00382/2021 Jagdish and another Vs UOI issued circular dated 12.07.2019 (Annexure A-7) vide which directions were given for disposal of pending representations and since the representation of the applicant had been pending since 2017 latest, hence the same was required to be considered. However, the Respondents have not considered his matter inspite of the 2017 application and even the latest application dated 10.11.2020. That, similar cases have been considered such as that of Smt. Kailasha Devi vide letter dated 31.10.2020. That hence there is discrimination against the applicant on account of which he is before the Tribunal seeking justice for appointment under the Scheme.
3. Per Contra the ld. respondent counsel argued that the applicable Railway Board circular is dated 10.03.2021 which has been issued in compliance of the latest directions of the Hon Apex Court vide judgements dated 28/01/2021 and 29/01/2021 in WP No. 1407 of 2019 and WP No. 78 of 2021 respectively which are later to the earlier directions of 2019 quoted by the applicant. That in these latest directions of 2021,it is directed that once the scheme itself was withdrawn no benefit whatsoever including one of consideration of Representation could be afforded to any of the persons. Similar directions have been given in WP No. 78 of 2021.In light of above the applicant has no case for consideration and hence his O.A is liable to be dismissed.
Page 3 of 9 CAT ALLAHABAD BENCH OA No 00382/2021 Jagdish and another Vs UOI
4. We have heard the learnt counsel for both the parties at length as also carefully examined the filed pleadings and documents assiduously.
5. The key issue is that whether the applicant has the ab initio right to make any representation in light of the direction of the Honourable Supreme Court in WP number 1407 of 2019 and WP number 78 of 2021 as of today before the Tribunal/any other fora. For this, it would be well to examine the directions of the Hon Apex Court and the Railway Board circular cited by the ld. respondent counsel in this matter as also that filed by the applicants. Relevant abstracts of the same are reproduced:
Judgement dated 28.01.2021 of the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of WP 1407 of 2019 Abhishek Kumar Jha versus Union of India "......Reliance is also placed on the subsequent order dated 26.03.2019 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.219 of 2019 to submit that applications preferred by some persons who had offered their candidature before the withdrawal of the Scheme were directed to be considered. The order shows that this court did not rule on the submission but allowed the concerned persons to make representation to the authorities.
However, in number of matters taken up later, this court refused to accept similar petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India on the premise that once the Scheme itself was withdrawn, no benefit whatsoever including one of consideration of representation could be afforded to any of the persons. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG has reiterated that the Scheme itself stood withdrawn.
Page 4 of 9 CAT ALLAHABAD BENCH OA No 00382/2021 Jagdish and another Vs UOI In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
...................................3. [UDAY UMESH LALIT] Sd/-
...................................3. [HEMANT GUPTA]
--------------------------------------------- Judgement dated 29.01.2021 of Hon Apex Court in WP number 78 of 2021 Manjeet Singh and others versus Union of India "....5. In a subsequent order dated 26 March 2019, which was rendered in Writ Petition (C) No. 219 of 2019 (Narinder Siraswal v Union of India), a Bench of two-Judges permitted the petitioners to approach the authorities with an appropriate representation with direction to consider it.
6. The reliefs which have been sought in the present case, as already noted earlier, are for a writ of mandamus to the Union of India to appoint the petitioners in their respective cadres. A conscious decision has been taken by the Union of India to terminate the Scheme. This has been noticed in the order of this Court dated 6 March 2019, which has been extracted above. While taking this decision on 5 March 2019 the Union of India has stated that where wards had completed all formalities prior to 27 October 2017 (the date of termination of the Scheme) and were found fit, since the matter was pending consideration before this Court, further instructions would be issued in accordance with the directions of this Court. Noticing the above decision, this Court, in its order dated 6 March 2019, specifically observed that since the Scheme stands terminated and is no longer in existence, nothing further need be done in the matter. The Scheme provided for an avenue of a back door entry into the service of the railways. This would be fundamentally at odds with Article 16 of the Constitution. The Union government has with justification discontinued the scheme. The petitioners can claim neither a vested right nor a legitimate Page 5 of 9 CAT ALLAHABAD BENCH OA No 00382/2021 Jagdish and another Vs UOI expectation under such a Scheme. All claims based on the Scheme must now be closed.
7. In view of the above factual background, we are not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32. The grant of reliefs to the petitioners would only enable them to seek a back door entry contrary to the orders of this Court. The Union of India has correctly terminated the Scheme and that decision continues to stand.
8. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, the petition is dismissed. A certified copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Registrar (Judicial) to the Chairman of the Railway Board for intimation and compliance.
9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
...................................J. [Dr.Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] Sd/-
...................................J. [Indira Banerjee] Sd/-
...................................J. [Sanjiv Khanna]
---------------------------------------------------------- Railway Board circular dated 10.03.2021 Government of India (Bharat Sarkar) Ministry of Railways (Rail Mantralay) (Railway Board) No. E(P&A)I-2015/RT-43 New Delhi, dated:10.03.2021 The General Managers, All Indian Railways/Pus.
(Attn: PCPOs) Sub:- Disposal of LARSGESS cases in light of Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions in WP(C) No. 1407/2019 and WP(C) No.78/2021. Please find enclosed herewith copies of Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgments dated 28/01/2021 in W.P.(C) No. 1407 of 2019 (Abhishek Kumar Jha &Ors. V/s UOI &Anr.) and 29/01/2021 in W.P. (C) No. 78 of 2021 (Manjit &Ors. V/s UOI &Anr.), wherein the petitioners have prayed to direct the respondents to offer appointment to them under LARSGESS Scheme. Hon'ble Supreme Court in their above said judgments dated 28/01/2021 & 29/01/2021 has observed as under: Page 6 of 9
CAT ALLAHABAD BENCH OA No 00382/2021 Jagdish and another Vs UOI WP(C) No. 1407/2019 "........... that once the Scheme itself was withdrawn, no benefit whatsoever including one of consideration of representation could be afforded to any of the persons."WP(C) No. 78/2021
"............... This Would be fundamentally at odds with Article 16 of the Constitution. The Union government has with justification discontinued the scheme. The petitioners can claim neither a vested right nor a legitimate expectation under such a Scheme. All claims based on the Scheme must now be closed."
2. In view of the above, Railways are directed to adhere to the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering any of the LARSGESS cases. DA: As above.
Sd/-
(N P Singh) Joint Director / E[P&A), Railway Board Tele No. 47845124 Email Id: [email protected] 1st Floor, Room No.109-B Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi-110001 It is clear from the aforesaid by plain reading that no representations can now be taken up for any consideration before this Tribunal or any other court/forum in the context of orders and law thereupon laid down by the Hon Apex Court and the Hon Apex Court has in their judgements of 2021 above cited their earlier judgements and hence the earlier judgements stand superseded. The earlier and the latest Railway Board circulars are only in compliance of the orders directed by the Hon Apex Court and the current circular of 10.03.2021 is only in compliance of the directions of the directions by the Hon Apex Court in its judgements of 28/01/2021 and 29/01/2021 (2021 judgement/directions). Page 7 of 9 CAT ALLAHABAD BENCH OA No 00382/2021 Jagdish and another Vs UOI The Hon Apex Court lays down the law of the land and the same has to be strictly complied with to the letter. Therefore, looking into the facts of the case we find that there is no ground on which we can escape from the law laid down by the Hon Apex Court which does not enable this Tribunal to give any directions contrary to the judgement of the Hon Apex Court on the said representation of the applicant of date 10.11.2020 (Annexure A-8).
6. As regards bias qua the consideration of other applicant like Smt. Kailasha Devi, we are in no position to ascertain any details of facts from the pleadings/annexures filed and also given the fact that such person(s)is/are not arrayed as parties, hence also no bias or such element can be taken up or construed legally. In any case at the risk of repetition it is to be held that with the 2021 judgement of the Hon Apex Court nothing can be considered on this matter also now. As regards the inter-zonal transfer also, the ld. respondent counsel has asserted vociferously that the matter of inter-zonal transfer of the applicant No-1 is disputed inasmuch that while the applicant No-1 claims that he was fully and finally transferred from Bhopal to Jhansi division of NCR but the same is disputed and the issue regarding the same is also not part of the relief in the instant O.A. Hence there is no basis for consideration of the appointment plea on the grounds of some earlier inter-zonal transfer. We thus find that both on the Page 8 of 9 CAT ALLAHABAD BENCH OA No 00382/2021 Jagdish and another Vs UOI grounds of law and fact there is little substance in the claim of the applicant.
7. Accordingly, we find that we are unable to agree to the plea of the applicant for any consideration whatsoever with regard to his appointment under the Scheme. In summum bonnum the prayer is not supported by any anything convincible and cannot stand on its legs both on grounds of fact and law including in light of the 2021 directions of the Hon Apex Court. Hence O.A. is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.
8. No costs (Devendra Chaudhry) (Justice Vijay Lakshmi) Member - A Member - J /M.M/ Page 9 of 9