Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/2744/2020 on 18 February, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010084482020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WRIT APPEAL NOS.2744 OF 2020
1. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the
Government of India, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi -
110001.
2. The General Manager (Construction),
N.F. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati - 781001, Assam.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager (P), N.F. Railway, Lumding,
PO: Lumding, District: Hojai, Assam, PIN - 782447.
4. The Senior Section Engineer (Con), N.F. Railway, Guwahati,
Near Guwahati Railway Station, Guwahati - 781001, Assam.
5. The Deputy Chief Signal & Telecommunication Engineer
(Con), Maligaon, Guwahati - 781011, Assam.
........Petitioners
-Versus-
Shri Baijnath Mali,
Son of Late Rajeswar Mali,
Working as Khalashi Helper, Office of the Senior Section
Engineer (Con), N.F. Railway, Near Guwahati Railway Station,
Guwahati - 781001, Assam.
........Respondent
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUDHANSHU DHULIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
For the Writ Petitioners : Mr. A. Dasgupta, Senior Advocate.
Mr. S.C. Biswas, Advocate.
Mr. B. Das, Advocate.
Page No.# 2/4
For the Respondent : Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Senior Advocate.
Mr. R.M. Deka, Advocate.
Date of hearing and Judgment & Order : 18th February, 2021.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, CJ)
Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned
counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by
Mr. R.M. Deka, learned counsel, appearing for the sole respondent.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the Union of India against the order dated
31.01.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in
Original Application No.040/00444/2019 (Baijnath Mali -Vs- Union of India & Ors.).
3. The Indian Railways had floated a Scheme on 11.09.2010 called " Liberalized Active
Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff" (popularly called as
"LARSGESS"). Under the said Scheme, the employees, who were working as Safety Staff in
the Indian Railways and were to retire from service, could take voluntary retirement when
they were between 55 to 57 years and on their taking voluntary retirement, the wards of such
an employee got employment in his/her place.
4. The Punjab & Haryana High Court meanwhile had passed orders on 27.04.2016 and
14.07.2017 asking the Union of India to reconsider its Scheme, as it was clearly violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Union of India thereafter had put on hold
all appointments under the said Scheme w.e.f. 27.10.2017 and thereafter, took a decision on
06.03.2019 not to appoint any person under the said Scheme, which will be effective from
27.10.2017.
5. The present respondent had applied under the said Scheme in August, 2015 and
sought appointment of his ward in Group-D post.
6. Since this appointment was not given, the respondent had filed an original
application before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Central Administrative Tribunal
Page No.# 3/4
allowed the aforesaid original application vide its order dated 30.01.2020. The Central
Administrative Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Scheme came to an end on
27.10.2017 and since the applicant (respondent herein) had applied under the said Scheme
prior to 27.10.2017, i.e. in the year 2015 itself, and his application was in order, it was liable
to be considered inasmuch as the Scheme was alive at the relevant time and the denial of
benefit under the said Scheme was wrong. Consequently, the Original Application was allowed
with the direction to the Railway Authorities to allow the applicant (respondent herein) to go
on retirement and give appointment to the ward of the applicant. This order is presently
challenged before this Court.
7. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the sole respondent has
made a reference of certain interim orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as order
dated 26.03.2019 passed in WP(C) No.219/2019, wherein it was stated as under:-
"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 representation. If
such representation is made, the authorities will do well to consider the matter within
two weeks on preferring of the representation.
With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
8. However, Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned senior counsel representing the writ petitioners
has placed before this Court an order of the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court
dated 29.01.2021, which now puts an end to any controversy in the present Scheme. This
order was passed in WP(C) No.78/2021, where the Hon'ble Apex Court after taking notice of
the Scheme and the benefits being given to certain applicants under the Scheme came to the
conclusion that this Scheme is nothing but a back door entry in public employment and,
therefore, clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. What were stated
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraphs 6, 7 & 8 are relevant, which read as under:-
"6. .......... The Scheme provided for an avenue of a back door entry into the
service of the railways. This would be fundamentally at odds with Article 16 of the
Constitution. The Union government has with justification discontinued the scheme. The
Page No.# 4/4
petitioners can claim neither a vested right nor a legitimate expectation under such a
Scheme. All claims based on the Scheme must now be closed.
7. In view of the above factual background, we are not inclined to entertain the
petition under Article 32. The grant of reliefs to the petitioners would only enable them
to seek a back door entry contrary to the orders of this Court. The Union of India has
correctly terminated the Scheme and that decision continues to stand.
8. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, the petition is dismissed.
A certified copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Registrar (Judicial) to the
Chairman of the Railway Board for intimation and compliance."
9. This controversy has thus been brought to an end. It is irrelevant whether the
respondent had applied prior to 27.10.2017 or not, for the simple reason that the Scheme,
which was clearly violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, itself does not exist
anymore. We may also note that in any case, in the present case, the employee of the
Railways, Shri Baijnath Mali, had not taken a pre-matured retirement but he has now retired
from service having reached the age of his superannuation on 31.01.2020. Therefore, in any
case, the respondent cannot take benefit of this Scheme.
10. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 31.01.2020
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in Original
Application No.040/00444/2019 (Baijnath Mali -Vs- Union of India & Ors.), is hereby set aside.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
