Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Bhagwan Das vs General Manager N C Rly on 9 October, 2019
(Open Court)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH,
ALLAHABAD
Original Application No. 330/974/2018
This is the 09th day of OCTOBER 2019.
HON'BLE MS. AJANTA DAYALAN, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE MR. RAKESH SAGAR JAIN, MEMBER (J)
1. Bhagwan Das, aged about 60 years, S/o Dhani Ram R/o 221, Near Mata
Mandir, Gararyana, Koncha Bhawa, Jhansi.
..........Applicants
By Advocate: Shri S M Ali
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, Head Quarter North Central
Railway, Allahabad.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi.
3. Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Goods), North Central Railway,
Jhansi.
..........Respondents
By Advocate : Shri S K Ray
ORDER
Delivered by : Hon'ble Ms. Ajanta Dayalan, Member (A) Heard Shri S M Ali, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S K Ray, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The delay condonation application no. 2202 of 2018 has been moved by the applicant's counsel seeking condonation of delay in filing the OA in 2018 wherein the applicant is seeking decision on his pending representation dated 26.10.2017 for covering the applicant under the LARSGESS Scheme. 2
3. Learned counsel for the respondents states that in fact the applicant made first representation in 2010 which could not be considered by the respondents' department as the applicant did not fulfil the eligibility criteria of minimum 33 years of qualifying service for being considered under LARSGESS Scheme. Thereafter, the applicant moved a representation only in October, 2017. Hence, the delay has to be considered from the date first representation and not the subsequent representation. Accordingly, the delay in this case would be substantial and of almost 7-8 years. As such, the respondents' counsel objects to condonation of this substantial delay.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant at this stage states that the applicant would be satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents' department to consider his representation dated 26.10.2017 (Annexure No. A-3 to the OA) and pass a reasoned and speaking order thereon.
5. The respondents' counsel has no objection to this limited prayer.
6. It is observed that the issue of LARSGESS Scheme was examined by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 7714/2016 arising out of the order passed by Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kala Singh and others vs. Union of India and others in OA No. 060/656/2014. While disposing of the CWP No. 7714/2016, Hon'ble High Court vide the judgment dated 27.04.2016 held that the LARSGESS Scheme does not stand the test of the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the Railway Board was directed to re-consider the said Scheme. The Review petition filed by the respondents was also dismissed by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 14.07.2017. Subsequently the Railway Board challenged the order of Hon'ble High Court before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP (C) No. 508/2018 and vide order dated 8.1.2018, Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order of Hon'ble High Court.
3
7. Thereafter, the Railway Board has reviewed the LARSGESS Scheme as per the direction of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and vide its order dated 26.09.2018 (R.B.E. No. 150/2018) has decided as under:-
"2. In compliance with the above directions, Ministry of Railways have revisited the scheme duly obtaining legal opinion and consulted Ministry of Law & Justice. Accordingly, it has been decided to terminate the LARSGESS Scheme w.e.f. 27.10.2017 i.e. the date from which it was put on hold. No further appointments should be made under the Scheme except in cases where employees have already retired under the LARSGESS Scheme before 27.10.17 (but not normally superannuated) and their wards could not be appointed due to the Scheme having been put on hold in terms of Board's letter dated 27.10.17 though they had successfully completed the entire process and were found medically fit. All such appointments should be made with the approval of the competent authority."
8. Subsequently, another Circular dated 28.09.2018 (RBE No. 15/2018) was issued. The content of Circular is reproduced as below: -
"In supersession to Railway Board's letter No. E(P&A)1-2015/RT- 43 dated 26.09.2018, it is stated that while the LARSGESS Scheme continues to be on hold with effect from 27.10.2017 on account of various cases, to impart natural justice to the staff who have already retired under LARSGESS scheme before 27.10.2017 (but not naturally superannuated) and appointment of whose wards was not made due to various formalities, appointment of such of the wards/candidates can be made with the approval of the competent authority.".
9. Thus the LARSGESS Scheme has been terminated with effect from 27.10.2017 and only the cases where the employees have already retired under LARSGESS before 27.10.2017 but who are not normally superannuated and whose case could not be considered because of the order of the Railway Board to put the Scheme on hold can be considered under the Scheme.
10. In short, the LARSGESS Scheme itself has been reviewed and has been terminated in the light of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP (C) No. 508/2018 and as such any case under this scheme needs to be reviewed in 4 the light of the Railway Board's revised instructions dated 26.09.2018 (R.B.E. No. 150/2018) and dated 28.09.2018 (RBE No. 15/2018).
11. In view of the circumstances as discussed above, this OA is finally disposed of by remitting the matter to the competent authority amongst the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant dated 26.10.2017 in the light of the Railway Board order dated 26.09.2018 (R.B.E. No. 150/2018) as well as Circular dated 28.09.2018 (RBE No. 15/2018) and to pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order under intimation to the applicant within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All the connected MAs are also disposed of.
12. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion about the merit of the case or on limitation/delay and laches while passing this order.
13. There will be no order as to costs.
MEMBER-J MEMBER-A Arun...