ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A) None for the applicant. Heard Shri Dharam Raj Pal, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents points out that on the past occasions too there has been no representation of the applicant.

3. A bare perusal of the order sheets shows that neither the applicant nor his counsel has been attending the court regularly. Although, there is sufficient ground to dismiss this OA in default, however, since the relief sought in the instant OA is retirement and subsequent appointment under the LARSGESS scheme, it would also be appropriate to discuss the merits of this case.

4. In a large number of similar OAs, this Bench and various Benches of this Tribunal have held that since the LARSGESS scheme is no longer in operation and it has been held to be ultra vires of the Constitution and patently illegal by the different Courts, no relief under this Scheme would be granted to anyone. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the observations of this Tribunal in the identical matter which was agitated in OA No. 260 of 2020. While disposing of the said OA, this Tribunal has held as under:-

“7. It would be worthwhile to briefly quot e from the Judgments/Orders referred to in the preceding paragraphs. The issue of the LARSGESS Scheme was meticulously examined by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryaya High Court in CWP No.7714/2016. This CWP was the outcome of the orders passed by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kala Singh and Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. While disposing of the above referred CWP the Hon’ble High Court in its Judgment dated 27.04.2016 unambiguously mentioned that the LARSGESS Scheme fails the test of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It further directed the Railway Board to review the said Scheme in view of these observations. The Railway Board chose to assail this order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP © 508/2018 and the Hon’ble Apex Court t hrough its order dated 08.01.2018 declined to interfere in the order of the Hon’ble High Court. As a consequence, the Railway Board discontinued the Scheme and gave categorical directions to all its sub-ordinate offices that; “no further appointments shoul d be made under the scheme” which stood terminated w.e.f.27.10.2017.

8. Although the above referred Judgments and orders made the position abundantly clear the observations of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 11.01.2019 in WP (C)13597/2018 in the case of SH. Ram Sevak and Ors Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. are also pertinent especially in the light of the arguments adduced by the learned counsel for the applicant that his client had made the applications much earlier whereas some appointments were made on the basis of applications made much later. While dismissing the petitions the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi stated that:-

“The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that his application under the said scheme had been made earlier, and those who made the application later were granted the benefit of the LARSGESS Scheme. In our view, that is no ground to claim the relief sought by the petitioners. There is no vested right in the petitioners to claim the benefit of an illegal scheme.

Merely because some others may have got away with the benefit under the scheme before being declared illegal, does not justify perpetuation of the illegality by granting benefit under the said scheme to the petitioners.”

5. In addition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) 1407 of 2019 had held that once the scheme itself was withdrawn no benefit whatsoever including one of consideration of representation would be afforded to any of the person. Similarly, in CWP No. 78 of 2021 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the LARSGESS scheme is fundamenta