Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 434
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
V.K. TAHILRAMANI & M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
Union of India through, the General Manager Central Railway – Petitioner
Versus
Laxman Shambu Kulam – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10928 of 2016
Decided On : 05-04-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. T.J. Pandian.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vicky A. Nagrani.
Important Point - The Respondent must have had a reasonable expectation that after success in the medical examination, his son will be offered a job by the Petitioners and he must have waited with that expectation before approaching the Tribunal for legal remedy.
Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Employment under LARSGESS Scheme.-Since employee working with Railway and his ward has satisfied all requirements for consideration under Scheme hence CAT rightly held his son eligible for employment under scheme.
When the respondent preferred the O.A. he had only 3 months of service left, hence he was not eligible under the scheme as under the scheme the applicant has to have 3 years of service left at the time of preferring the application. The respondent was eligible for consideration under the LARSGESS Scheme as he had completed 20 years of regular service. He had worked in one of the safety categories mentioned in the guidelines and on the date of his application i.e., 11th January, 2013, he was below 57 years of age and his date of birth was admittedly 9th February, 1956. Thus on 11th January, 2013 he had 3 years before he retired. In view of the fact that the third application of the respondent was returned after 8th February, 2013 for non- attestation of the photographs the application would still be said to be alive.
The son of the respondent was also sent for medical examination and was found medically fit for appointment. The respondent must have had a reasonable expectation that after success in the medical examination, his son will be offered a job by the petitioners and he must have waited with that expectation before approaching the Tribunal for legal remedy. It is seen that when he preferred the application on 11th January, 2013 the respondent still have 3 years for his superannuation. In view of the above facts Court find no error in the order of the Tribunal whereby the O.A. came to be allowed. Thus, the respondent and his ward had satisfied all requirements for consideration under the LARSGESS scheme.
V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.
1. Rule. By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Counsel for the Respondent. The Petitioners in this Petition were the original Respondents before the Tribunal and the Respondent was the Applicant before the Tribunal.
3. This Writ Petition is preferred against the order dated 26th February, 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in O.A. No. 677 of 2015 whereby the O.A. came to be allowed. The Respondent had preferred the said O.A. seeking direction to the Petitioners to hold that as on 11th January, 2013 i.e. the date of his last application he fulfills all the conditions under Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment (LARSGESS scheme) and thus he is eligible to be considered under the said scheme i.e. he be given voluntary retirement and his son be given employment under the said scheme. The O.A came to be allowed.
4. The Respondent worked as Khalasi Helper under the Petitioner No. 2. He had joined the permanent post of Khalasi on 14th September, 1987 and had completed more than 20 years of qualifying services. The Railway Board by order dated 11th September, 2010 decided to extend the benefit of LARSGESS Scheme to safety categories of staff with a Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- p.m. In the order dated 11th September, 2010 the qualifying service was reduced from 33 years to 20 years and eligibility age group from 55-57 years to 50-57 years for seeking retirement under the Scheme in the case of Safety categories with Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/-. Admittedly at that time the Respondent was covered by the scheme.
5. On 5th August, 2011 the Respondent submitted application for consideration of appointment to his son under the LARSGESS Scheme. Since he did not receive any reply from the Petitioners, he submitted a second application on 5th August, 2012. The Respondent claimed that although he qualified on all norms for consideration, he did not get any reply from the Petitioners. He, therefore, submitted a third application on 11th January, 2013 for consideration of the appointment of his son under the LARSGESS Scheme. Admittedly the Respondent's son was sent for medical examination vide letter dated 27th January, 2014 and he accordingly underwent medical examination and was declared fit. After the Respondent's son was declared fit, the Respondent was awaiting appointment order in relation of his son. However, instead a letter dated 28th August, 2014 was served on him informing him that his date of birth as per the office record is 9th February, 1956. There is no dispute on either side that the date of birth of the Respondent is 9th February, 1956. However, in the said letter there was no intimation regarding his application for employment of his son under the LARSGESS scheme. Since the Respondent did not hear anything from the Petitioners in relation to this he filed O.A. No. 677 of 2015 wherein it was prayed as under:
“8(a) This Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case from the Respondents and after examining the same hold and declare that as on 11.01.2013 i.e. the date of his last application the applicant fulfills all the conditions of LARSGESS scheme and thus is eligible to be considered under LARSGESS Scheme with all consequential benefits.
(b) Alternatively this Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the respondents to consider all the three applications submitted by the applicant and pass speaking order thereof.
(c) Cost of the application be provided for.
(d) Any other and further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the nature and circumstances of the case be passed.”
6. The main contention of the Respondent was that there was inaction on the part of the Petitioners in not considering the case of the Respondent for appointment of his son under LARSGESS scheme. The contention of the Respondent was that the Petitioners ought t
