CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench

Vijay Kumar vs Ministry Of Railways & Others

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 20 November 2020 · Citation: (2020) 11 CAT CK 0084

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pradeep Kumar, Member (A) · R.N. Singh, Member (J)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 1849 Of 2020, Miscellaneous Application No. 2377 Of 2020
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

27 paragraphs · 503 words

Pradeep Kumar, Member (A)

1.

The father of the applicant is a serving Railway employee. The Railways had a scheme known as Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for

Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (LARSGESS). The father wanted to take the benefit of LARSGESS and he offered to go on voluntary

retirement and requested that his son may be granted the appointment under the said scheme. He made a representation to this effect on 29.01.2016.

It is pleaded that the medical examination was also conducted on 01.09.2016 and he was declared as fit vide Memo dated 05.09.2016. However, the

son (who is the applicant in the instant OA) has not been appointed as yet.

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 Dt

5.3.2019. However, in respect of cases pending as of 27.10.2017, the matter was adjudicated by Hon’ble Apex Court vide their judgement Dt

26.3.2019 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.

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

covered under the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment (Para 2 supra), he has also preferred a representation dated 13.06.2019 followed by another

representation on 16.10.2020. These have not been replied as yet. Feeling aggrieved, the instant OA has been filed.

4.

The matter has been heard. Issue Notice.

5.

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

6.

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

13.06.2019 and 16.10.2020 by passing a reasoned and speaking order in terms of Hon’ble Apex Court Judgment dated 26.03.2019 (Para 2 supra).

7.

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 representation representations dated 13.06.2019 and 16.10.2020, 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.

8.

Pending MA No. 2377/2020 also stands disposed of. No costs.