Ajay Kumar vs Union Of India

V. Ajay Kumar, J

Heard Ms. Meenu Mainee, the learned counsel for the review applicant and Shri Krishna Kant Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the pleadings on record.

M.A. No. 1218/2018 filed for seeking condonation of delay in refilling of the RA is allowed.

M.A. No. 1219/2018 seeking to condone the delay in filing the RA is allowed in the circumstances and for the reasons mentioned therein.

R.A. No. 47/2018 in OA No.3839/2014

O.A. No. 3839/2014 filed by the applicant questioning the action of the respondents-Railways in cancelling his candidature for consideration for appointment under the Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (in short "LARSGESS Scheme") was dismissed by this Tribunal along with so many other identical OAs, all pertaining to the LARSGESS Scheme vide its common judgment in OA No. 636/2013 and batch dated 16.01.2015 for the reasons mentioned therein. The batch of Writ Petitions filed by some of the applicants in the batch of said OAs vide W.P. (C) No.11155/2015 and batch were allowed vide the common order dated 11.12.2015 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and resultantly, those OAs where Writ Petitions were filed were remanded back for fresh hearing.

The applicant in OA No.3839/2014 filed the instant RA by submitting that though his OA was also dismissed by this Tribunal by its common order dated 16.01.2015, but though some of the applicants in the other OAs of the said batch have filed writ petitions against the dismissal of their respective OAs but the applicant has not preferred any Writ Petition. Since the Hon'ble High Court has set aside the common order dated 16.01.2015 of this Tribunal and remanded back the OAs of other applicants for fresh hearing, the applicant filed the instant RA seeking review of the common order dated 16.01.2015 and batch only in respect of his OA No.3839/2014 for recalling the order and for fresh hearing of his OA also along with other OAs of other applicants in the said batch.

When this RA is taken up for hearing, it is admitted by both the counsel that this Tribunal after the batch of OAs were remanded to the Tribunal has declared that the LARSGESS Scheme itself is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India by following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, judgement dated 27.04.2016, in Kala Singh and Others vs. Union of India & Others and also the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment dated 17.04.2017 in SLP No.11566/2017 (Telangana Boggu Gani Karmika Sangam v. K. Satish Kumar and Others). In view of the declaration of the LARSGESS Scheme as violative of the constitutional provisions, even if the instant RA is allowed and the OA of the applicant is restored, no useful purpose would be served at this stage.

In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the RA is dismissed. No costs.