AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Mohd. Yaseen, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Saurabh, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By way of the instant original application, prayer has been made to set aside the order dated 08.08.2019 passed by respondent no. 2 as well as the policy dated 05.03.2019 and to direct respondents to give voluntary retirement to the applicant and to appoint his dependent under LARSGESS Scheme.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the applicant has retired, no benefit of appointment to his son under LARSGESS Scheme has been extended. Referring to the impugned order, learned counsel argued that same was passed without taking into consideration the provisions of the Scheme, thus prayer was made to allow this OA and the respondents may be directed to appoint his son under LARSGESS Scheme.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that since the LARSGESS Scheme stands terminated by the Government . Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjit and others Vs. Union of India and another (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 78 of 2021, and submits that this OA cannot be allowed.
We have considered the rival submissions and peruse the record.
Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the issue in the case of Manjit and others (Supra) has observed as under: -
“3.On 5 March 2019, the Union of India took a decision to terminate the Scheme. The decision of the Union of India was noticed in an order dated 6 March 2019, in the following terms:
“In compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 27.04.2016 in CWP No. 7714 of 2016, dated 14.07.2017 in RA-CW-330-2017 and Orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 08.01.2018 in SLP (C) No. 508/2018, Ministry of Railways have revisited the LARSGESS 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. Therefore, no further appointments should be made under the Scheme subject to position mentioned in para 2 below.
2.As regard the case where the wards had completed all formalities including Medical Examination under LARSGESS Scheme prior to 27.10.2017 and were found fit, but the employees are yet to retire, the matter is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and further instructions would be issued as per directions of the Hon’ble Court.”
4.Following the above decision, on 6 March 2019, this Court disposed of IA 18573 of 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No. 346 of 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No. 1202 of 2018 in SLP (C) No. 508 of 2018 by observing that “since the Scheme stands terminated and is no longer in existence, nothing further need be done in the matter.
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 a direction to consider it.
6.The relief 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 notices 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 had 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 4 claim neither a vested right nor a legitimate expectation under such a Scheme. All claims based on the Scheme must now be closed.”
We have considered the legal position in the light of the prayer made in the present matter. Since the LARSGESS scheme has been terminated and there is a specific direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that all claims based on the scheme must now be closed, therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid fact, relief claimed in the matter cannot be granted in favour of the applicants. Thus, the O.A. is dismissed. All pending MAs in this O.As are also stand disposed off.
There shall be no order as to costs.