The court clarified that the benefit of the LARGESS scheme could not be extended where an employee had attained the age of superannuation in the normal course.

ORDER :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioners have prayed for following relief,

"A. xxx xxx xxx.

B. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside the order (oral) dated 28.08.2019 in O.A. No. 275 of 2019 with M.A. No. 286 of 2019 and further direct the Respondents to consider case of Petitioner No. 1 and release appointment to Petitioner No. 2 on suitable post under the LARGESS Scheme in terms of Railway Board's letter No. E (P&E) 1-2015/RT-43 dated 26.09.2018 read with Railway Board's Circular Policy dated 28.09.2018 for his appointment.

C. xxx xxx xxx.

D. xxx xxx xxx.

E. xxx xxx xxx."

2. Heard learned advocate, Ms. Kajal Kalwani for the petitioners.

3. Learned advocate has referred to the averments made in the memo of petition and submitted that the petitioner no.1 was serving as Sr. Cleaner in SSE (Elec) (TL) Rajkot and the petitioners submitted an applications in the year 2010, 2011 and 2012 under the prevailing scheme i.e. Liberalised Active Retirement Scheme (LARGESS) for the employment of his son on appropriate post. The petitioner no.2 is the son of the petitioner no.1. The respondent, vide communication dated 06.09.2013, rejected the representation made by the petitioner no.1 on the ground that the petitioner no.1 has not completed 20 years qualifying services and, therefore, his case cannot be considered under LARGESS scheme. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the said letter/ order dated 06.09.2013 before the Tribunal by filing OA No.285/2013 along with MA No.305/2013. The Tribunal disposed of the said application by an order dated 31.01.2017 without entertaining the merits or de-merits of the matter. In the meantime, the petitioner no.1 retired from the services on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2016.

Thereafter on 26.09.2018 and 28.09.2018, the respondent - Railway Board issued letter for termination of LARGESS scheme w.e.f. 27.10.2017. The petitioner no.1 submitted representations dated 30.11.2018 and 27.02.2019 and requested the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner no.2 for the appointment under the LARGESS scheme. The said request was rejected and, therefore, the petitioners challenged the rejection of the request by filing OA No.275/2019 with MA No.286/2019 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, who by impugned order dated 20.08.2019, dismissed the said application submitted by the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, preferred the present petition.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioners has referred to the scheme framed by the respondents and submitted that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of the scheme. The petitioner no.2, who is son of the petitioner no.1, is eligible for the appointment under the said scheme. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error while observing that the case of the petitioner is not covered under the Circular dated 26.09.2018. Learned advocate contended that in fact, the case of the petitioner is covered under the Circular dated 26.09.2018, copy of which is placed on record at Page Nos.67-68 of the compilation. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal be set aside and appropriate direction be issued to the respondents.

5. We have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocate for the petitioner. We have also perused the material placed on record.

6. From the material placed on record, it would emerge that the petitioner no.1, who was serving as Sr. Cleaner with the respondent, made representation with a view to give employment to his son i.e. the petitioner no.2 under the prevailing scheme i.e. Liberalised Active Retirement Scheme (LARGESS). The scheme framed by the respondents was changed from time to time and on 28.09.2018, the respondent terminated the aforesaid scheme w.e.f. 27.10.2017. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner no.1 has retired from the services on 30.06.2016