The main legal point established in the judgment is that the declaration of a statute as unconstitutional obliterates the statute entirely as though it had never been passed, and the consequences of its declaration have to be dealt with only by the court.

ORDER :

The instant writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for quashing and setting aside order dated 13.03.2019 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ranchi, Circuit Bench in O.A. No. 051/00165/2019 by which the relief sought for by the petitioners claiming the benefit under LARSGESS Scheme has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, read as under:

The petitioner no. 1, father of petitioner no. 2, was employed as Porter in Danapur Division, East Central Railway and retired from service on 31.10.2013.

The Ministry of Railways issued advertisement for appointment to Grade ‘D’ Post on 20.10.2010. The petitioner no. 2, under the Scheme known as ‘LARSGESS Scheme’ which was floated by the concerned respondents on 25.11.2010, made representation before the concerned authorities for appointment on the said post but his representation was rejected vide letter dated 09.07.2018 stating therein that a subsequent amendment has been made vide letter dated 09.12.2010 in LARSGESS Scheme dated 20.10.2020 whereby Railways has changed the minimum qualification as Class X from Class VIII.

The petitioner being aggrieved with order dated 09.07.2018 moved before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 51/000820/2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 25.10.2018 granting liberty to the petitioner to submit comprehensive representation before the authority concerned who shall consider the same and pass reasoned order within stipulated period of time.

With the liberty aforesaid, the petitioner made detailed representation dated 01.11.2018 before the authority concerned. The authority concerned passed reasoned order dated 27.12.2018 denying the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification of Tenth Pass and the father of the petitioner had completed full tenure of his service, as such the petitioner cannot be granted employment as per the amended LARSGESS Scheme.

The petitioner, being aggrieved with the order dated 27.12.2018 preferred another application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ranchi Bench being O.A./051/00165/2019.

The learned Tribunal after calling upon the respondent concerned, who came with the plea that very LARSGESS Scheme has been terminated in view of judgments of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court being affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 508/2018 dated 08.01.2018, disposed of the Original Application vide order dated 13.03.2019 holding that since the petitioner does not hold the eligibility criteria of Class Tenth Pass and the father of the petitioner had retired in usual course of service, therefore the said benefits cannot be extended to the petitioner, which is the subject matter of instant writ petition.

3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel being assisted by Mr. Raunak Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioners has taken the ground that even though the LARGESS Scheme has been said to be held invalid/unconstitutional by the Court of law but the benefit of it has already accrued in favour petitioner on the ground that the day when such application was filed the LARGESS Scheme was in existence since the same was not declared unconstitutional by any Court of law till date.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-Union of India has submitted that position of law in this regard is that when any policy decision/rule/statute is being held to be invalid it will be said that it was never in existence. Here, in the instant case since the Scheme itself was held invalid and merely because application was filed prior to holding the Scheme to be invalid no right is accrued upon the writ petitioner for consideration of his case on the basis of said Scheme.

Learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of aforesaid argument has submitted that the learned Tribunal since considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter has dismissed