Subhash Chand vs Union Of India And Others

V. Ajay Kumar, Member J

The review applicant has filed this RA, seeking review of the common judgment dated 02.11.2017 in OA No.3874/2013 and batch. The applicant No.1 in OA No.1476/2017, which was also disposed of as part of the said common judgment, filed the instant RA seeking review of the said common order.

The issue involved in the OAs, which were disposed of by the above referred common order, is granting of benefits under the Liberalised Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (in short, LARSGES Scheme).

The short ground raised by the review applicant is that this Tribunal while dismissing the OA No.1476/2017 of the applicant (as part of the batch of OA 3874/2013), by its order dated 02.11.2017, followed the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Kala Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and Others dated 27.04.2016, whereas it ought to have followed the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition ( C) No.4422/2015 and batch dated 11.12.2015 (Annexure RA-2), since the jurisdictional High Court for this Bench of the Tribunal is Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which has to prevail and binding in case of any contradicting judgment by any other High Court.

A bare perusal of the Annexure RA-2 judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, clearly indicates that the Hon'ble High Court set aside the orders of this Tribunal in the batch of OAs against which the said batch of Writ Petitions were filed only on the ground that the issue of validity of the LARSGES Scheme was decided without giving opportunity to both the sides and accordingly, remanded the OAs for fresh adjudication, without expressing any independent view on the validity of LARSGES Scheme. On the other hand, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Kala Singh and Others (Supra), held that the LARSGES Scheme does not stand to the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the policy is a device evolved by the Railways to make back-door entries in public employment and brazenly militates against equality in public employment and the SLP filed against the said decision was also dismissed.

Since the applicant was not able to show any judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which is the jurisdictional High Court of this Bench of the Tribunal, where the LARSGES Scheme was upheld, the judgment in Kala Singh and Others (supra) of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana is binding on this Tribunal as was held in the detailed order in the OA of the review applicant.

In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the RA, which is dismissed in circulation. No costs.