Balkishan vs Union Of India & Others

Pradeep Kumar, Member (A)

The applicant herein had served the respondent â€" Railway. At the relevant point of time, the Railways had a scheme known as Liberalized Active

Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (LARSGESS), under which the staff posted on certain safety related posts could opt

to go on voluntary retirement, if he has requisite qualifying service and his ward (son/daughter) could be appointed in his place, if such a ward had the

necessary eligibility and qualification.

The applicant has pleaded that he applied to avail the benefit of LARSGESS on 9.2.2016, but his request was rejected on the plea that he did not

have the minimum requisite qualifying service to his credit as of relevant date. Applicant has superannuated on 31.5.2019.

The applicant, however, drew attention to an office noting sheet of 24.04.2019, which he obtained later under RTI on 2.1.2019, which indicates that he

had the necessary qualifying service of 33 years 4 months and 23 days as of relevant date. With this, the applicant pleads that the decision to reject his

claim under LARSGESS, was incorrect as it does not bear out on facts.

Subsequently, the applicant made a representation also which was also rejected by the respondents vide their letter dated 14.11.2019, on the same plea

of insufficient qualifying service to his credit on the relevant date.

Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has preferred the instant OA and relief has been sought to quash the said order dated 14.11.2019, with a direction

to the respondents to consider his case for grant of benefit under said LARSGESS scheme.

Matter has been heard. Issue notice. Shri K. K. Sharma, learned counsel appears on behalf of Respondents, on advance information, and accepts

notice.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he will be satisfied if the respondents are directed to review their decision, by passing a

reasoned and speaking order, on his representation in terms of latest directives by Hon’ble Apex Court vide their judgment Dated 26.3.2019 in

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 219 of 2019, Narinder Siraswal and Ors Vs UOI and Anr., wherein certain directions were passed in respect of those who

fulfilled the requirements as of 27.10.2017. The operative para reads as under:

“ xxxxx

Since the petitioners are claiming benefit under the scheme which was prevalent when applications were preferred by the petitioners, we give liberty

to the petitioners to approach the concerned authorities with appropriate representations. If such representation is made, the authorities will do well to

consider the matter within two weeks on preferring of the representations.

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.â€​

In view of the foregoing, the present OA is disposed of at the admission stage itself, without going into the merits of the case, with a direction to the

respondents to revisit their rejection order dated 14.11.2019 and pass a reasoned and speaking order afresh, keeping into account the Hon’ble

Apex Court’s direction dated 26.03.2019 (Supra). This exercise shall be completed within a period of 4 weeks and the decision so taken, shall be

advised to the applicants within this time. No costs.

Pending MA No.2544/2020 also stands disposed of.