Central Administrative Tribunal - DelhiGeeta Ram vs M/O Railways on 27 July, 2018CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
                    PRINCIPAL BENCH

                          OA 2560/2017


             New Delhi this the 27th day of July, 2018

Hon'ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. S.N. Terdal, Member (J)

Shri Geeta Ram,
S/o Shri Manohar Lal,
Aged 58 year,
Working as Khallasi (Group-C),
Under Sr. Section Engineer,
(P.Way), South, Mathura Junction,
Mathura (U.P).                                   ...   Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Manjeet Singh Reen)

                               VERSUS

Union of India & Others

1.    The Secretary,
      Ministry of Railways,
      Railway Board, New Delhi.

2.    The General Manager,
      North Central Railway,
      Allahabad (U.P).

3.    The Divisional Railway Manager,
      North Central Railway,
      Agra ( U.P.).                            ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Satpal Singh)
                          O R D E R (Oral)

Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A):This Original Application (OA) has been filed by the

applicant seeking the following reliefs:-"8.1 That this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be
                 pleased to allow this Original Application set
                 aside the impugned order dated 24.10.2016 to
                 the extent his son name may be included in the
                 selection list with all consequential benefits.28.2   That this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be
                 pleased to directing the respondents to appoint
                 his son under LARSGESS Scheme with all
                 consequential benefits.8.3   That this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be
                 pleased to directing the respondents to consider
                 his son case for extending the benefit of
                 Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for
                 Guaranteed     Employee     for  Safety    Staff
                 (LARSGESS) with all consequential benefits.8.4   That this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be
                 pleased to direct the respondents to produce all
                 relevant records before this Hon'ble Tribunal in
                 the interest of justice.8.5   That any other or further relief which this
                 Hon'ble Tribunal may be deem fit and proper
                 under the circumstances of the case may also
                 be granted in favour of the applicants.8.6   That the cost of the proceedings may also be
                 awarded in favour to the applicants."2.   The applicant, in this OA, is the employee of the Railways

and seeking employment under the Liberalised Active Retirement

Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (in short,

LARSGES Scheme) for his son.3.   When the present OA was taken up for hearing, it was found

that in CWP No.7714/2016, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab &

Haryana at Chandigarh, by its judgment dated 27.04.2016, inKala Singh and Others v. Union of India & Others, by holding

that the LARSGES Scheme does not stand to the test ofArticles

14and16of the Constitution of India and that the policy is a

device evolved by the Railways to make back-door entries in

public employment and brazenly militates against equality in

public employment, directed the Railway authorities that hitherto

before making any appointment under the offending policy, its

validity and sustainability be re-visited keeping in view the3principles of equal opportunity and elimination of monopoly in

holding public employment.4.     It is further seen that the SLP (C) No.4482/2017 filed

against the decision inKala Singh & Others(supra) was

dismissed by the Apex Court by its order dated 06.03.2017.Thereafter, the Review Application No.RA-CW-330/2017, dated

14.07.2017 filed by the Railways inKala Singh & Others(supra)

before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana was also

dismissed on 14.07.2017.5.     It is also relevant to note that an identical scheme like

LARSGESS, framed for the benefit of the employees of the

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, was declared to be violative

ofArticles 14and16of the Constitution of India by the Hon'ble

High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana

and Andhra Pradesh, andthe said decisionwas upheld by the

Hon'ble Apex Court by its order dated 17.04.2017 in SLP No.

11566/2017 (Telangana Boggue Gani Karmika Sangam v. K.

Satish Kumar and Others).6.     Further, it may also be mentioned that the same very issue,

as raised in this OA was already considered and adjudicated by

the Co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal in OA No. 3936/2017 and

batch -Jai Prakash and Others v. Union of India & Ors.and

after considering the judgment of the Apex Court judgment in the

case ofTelangana Boggue Gani Karmika Sangham(supra),

the OAs were dismissed. Hence, that judgment has attained

finality.47.In the circumstances and in view of the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court inTelangana Boggue Gani Karmika

Sangham(supra) and for the aforesaid reasons, the instant OA is

dismissed being devoid of any merit. No costs.( S.N. Terdal)                            ( Nita Chowdhury)
 Member (A)                                 Member (J)


/lg/