Sant Kumar vs Ministry Of Railways & Others

R. N. Singh, Member (J)

1) The father of the applicant herein had applied vide his application dated 24.7.2015 for VRS under a Scheme known as Liberalized Active

Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (LARSGESS), which was in force at that time, and seeking appointment of the

applicant (son) in his place. The medical examination of the applicant was also done on 31.5.2016 and he was declared medically „Fit‟. However,

the respondent Northern Railway advised him that appointment to applicant cannot be granted for want of some clarification from Railway board.

2) It is submitted that the said Scheme of LARSGESS was also put on hold w.e.f. 27.10.2017 because of certain judicial pronouncements and this

may have been the reason why Respondents awaited for clarification from Railway Board. The scheme was finally terminated also vide circular

dated 05.03.2019. However, in respect of cases pending as of 27.10.2017, the matter was adjudicated by Hon‟ble Apex Court vide their judgement

dated 26.03.2019 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.219 of 2019, Narinder Siraswal and Ors Vs UOI and Anr, wherein certain directions were passed.

The operative para reads as under:

“xxxxx

Since the petitioners are claiming benefit under the scheme which was prevalent when applications were preferred by the petitioners, we give liberty

to the petitioners to approach the concerned authorities with appropriate representations. If such representation is made, the authorities will do well to

consider the matter within two weeks on preferring of the representations. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending

application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.â€​

3) While his application under LARSGESS remained pending, the father of the applicant was supperannuated.

4) Since he satisfied the conditions when the LARSGESS scheme was still applicable and applicant was not granted appointment, and his case is

covered under the Hon‟ble Apex Court judgement (Para 2 supra), he has preferred representation for appointment of his son (applicant) under

LARSGESS on 30.10.2018 (Annexure A-5), 21.06.2019 (Annexure A-8) and 10.12.2020 (Annexure A-14), which have not been decided as yet.

Feeling aggrieved, the instant OA has been filed.

5) The matter has been heard. Issue Notice.

6) Shri K. K. Sharma, learned counsel appears on behalf of Respondents, on advance notice, and accepts notice.

7) At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he would be satisfied if the respondents decide his pending representations dated

30.10.2018 (Annexure A-5), 21.06.2019 (Annexure A-8) and 10.12.2020 (Annexure A-14) by passing a reasoned and speaking order in terms of

Hon‟ble Apex Court Judgment dated 26.03.2019 (Para 2 supra).

8) The OA is disposed of at the admission stage itself, without going into the merits of the case, with a direction to the respondents to pass a reasoned

and speaking order on the pending aforesaid representations dated 30.10.2018 (Annexure A-5), 21.06.2019 (Annexure A-8) and 10.12.2020

(Annexure A-14), keeping into account the Hon‟ble Apex Court‟s direction dated 26.03.2019. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 4

weeks and the decision so taken shall be advised to the applicants within this time.

9) Pending MA No.82/2021 also stands disposed of.