AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr.SudhiRanjan Mishra, Member, J.M.
The applicant challenging the order dated 31.12.2021 wherein her claim to consider the case of daughter for appointment in Railway under LARSGESS was rejected has filed this OA praying for following reliefs:
a)To quash the order dtd. 31.12.2021 under Ann. A/15;
b)And to direct the respondents to provide employment to the ward of the applicant namely SatyaSujata under LARSGESS Scheme;
c)And pass any other order as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.
The fact of the case as inter alia averred statedby the applicant in the OA is that applicant was initially engaged as a Casual Labourer on 16.07.1980 and while working as such her services were regularized w.e.f. 01.01.1984. It is submitted that Railway Board issued RBE No. 4/2004 known as Safety Related Retirement Scheme for Drivers and Gangman under which those who have completed 33 years of qualifying service within the age of 50 to 57 can seek retirement and on being found suitable one of the ward will be considered for appointment only in the lowest recruitment grade. It is submitted that vide RBE No. 131/2010 the scheme came to be known as Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (LARSGESS) and as per the scheme those who have completed 20 years of service for pension and within the age of 50-57 are eligible to get benefit of the said scheme. It is submitted that vide RBE No. 166/2011 clarification regarding issue of minimum educational qualification of candidates belonging to the categories of compassionate appointment, land loser, accident victims, LARSGESS and substitute in line with recommendation of 6th Pay Commission was accepted by the Govt. of India. Vide RBE No. 4/2012 the railways dispensed with Physical Efficiency Test and relaxation of minimum educational qualification norms for recruitment under LARSGESS. It is submitted that in pursuance to notification dated 27.12.2016, the applicant submitted proforma application and opted for her voluntary retirement from service and consideration of candidature of her married daughter under LARSGESS. It is submitted that she submitted certain additional document along with application dated 10.04.2017 to Respondent No. 3. It is submitted that respondent no. 4 vide letter dated 08.05.2017 had intimated that the applicant has not submitted any documents showing that SatyaSujata is her adopted daughter and no permission was obtained for the adoption from the competent authority. It is submitted that applicant submitted an exhaustive representation to Respondent No. 4 and replied all the question raised. She then approached CAT, Hyderabad Bench by filing OA No. 493/2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 21.11.2019 directing the respondents to dispose of her representation. It is submitted that respondent No. 4 disposed of the representation vide letter dated 07.02.2020 rejecting her claim on the ground that the Railway Board has withdrawn the LARSGESS Scheme vide letter dated 27.10.2016. Hence the OA.
The respondents have file counter inter alia averring that the scheme does not exist.
The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the stand taken in the OA.
Heard both sides and perused the records.
Indisputably, the respondents- Railways had taken a conscious decision on 06.03.2019 to terminate the LARSGESS Scheme and to decide that no further appointment should be made under the scheme. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Abhishek Kumar Jha&Ors. v. Union of India &Ors. (Writ Petition (c) No.1407/2019)" while dealing with the issue regarding extension of benefit under the LARSGESS Scheme was pleased to observe that once this Court has refused to accept similar petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India on the premises that once the scheme itself was withdrawn, no benefit whatsoever including one of consideration of representation could be offered to any of the persons claiming thereunder.
Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Manjeet and Ors. v. Union of India &Anr. (Writ Petition (C) No.78/2021)" while rejecting the request for extending the benefit of the LARSGESS Scheme to the petitioner was pleased to observe as under:-
"Thus 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 06th March, 2019, which has been extracted above. While taking this decision on 05th March 2019, the Union of India had stated that where wards had completed all formalities prior to 27th 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 06th 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 services 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 expectations under such a scheme. All claims based on the scheme must now be closed. In view of the above factual background, we are not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32. The grant to reliefs to the petitioner 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 Since the said scheme has already been terminated and the same has been upheld by Hon’ble Apex Court, we do not find any merit in the OA and accordingly the same is dismissed. Pending MA’s, if any, stands disposed of. No costs.