IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 9339 OF 2021 (S-CAT)

BETWEEN:

SRI M. R. SUBBA RAO S/O REVOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561208 WORKED AS POINTS MAN/ STATION MASTER OFFICE, GOWRIBIDANUR RAILWAY STATION, SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIM.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. S. VENKAT SUBBA RAO., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI GENERAL MANAGER, L C o O c U at R io T n O : F HIG H SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS KARNATAKA HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, GADAGA ROAD, HUBBALLI-580020.

2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONAL OFFICER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS, BENGALURU DIVISION, BENGALURU-560023.

3. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS, BENGALURU DIVISION, BENGALURU-560023.

…RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENTS SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00043/2017 FROM THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order dated 06.09.2017 in OA No.170/00043/2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (for short, “CAT”) rejecting his prayer to quash order dated 09.05.2015 (Annexure-A2) to consider his case for voluntary retirement under Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (for short ‘LARSGESS Scheme’) and rejection of his request to issue mandamus directing to consider his case under LARSGESS Scheme for voluntary retirement.

2. Heard Sri. Venkat Subba Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and perused the entire writ petition papers.

3. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner joined service as Trained Hamal (Traffic Porter). It is submitted that the Railways introduced LARSGESS Scheme. In pursuance to which, petitioner is stated to have applied for voluntary retirement in the year 2014 as well as in the year 2015. The petitioner’s case under LARSGESS Scheme was rejected on both the occasions holding that the petitioner is not eligible under the said Scheme. Questioning the rejection of petitioner’s case for voluntary retirement under LARSGESS Scheme, the petitioner was before the CAT questioning the List of Employees found ineligible for voluntary retirement under LARSGESS Scheme, communicated under letter dated 29.05.2015 and seeking a mandamus as stated above. The CAT holding that the Scheme itself is set aside as unconstitutional and ultra vires of the Constitution and especially breaching Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as held by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, rejected the petitioner’s OA.

Questioning the said order, petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel Sri. Venkata Subbarao would submit that when the Scheme was in existence, the case of the petitioner for voluntary retirement under LARSGESS Scheme was rejected unreasonably. Further, he invites attention of this Court to clarification issued by the Ministry of Railways dated 26.09.2018 (Annexure-D2) to contend that the Scheme was modified and under the modified Scheme, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered for voluntary retirement. Further, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner was over-aged by two months and that over-age could not be held against the petitioner to reject his case for voluntary retirement under LARSGESS Scheme.

Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere wit