Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15617 of 2017 Petitioner :- Ajeet Singh Yadav Respondent :- Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh,Vishnu Dutt Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Rajnish Kumar Rai,Saurabh Srivastava
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K Rai, learned counsel for respondents- 2 to 4.
2. Petitioner has filed present writ petition challenging order dated 6.10.2016, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (Annexure-1 to writ petition) (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal')dismissing Original Application (hereinafter referred to as 'O.A.') No. 330/01115/2016 (Ajeet Singh Yadav Vs. Union of India & Others) whereby, Tribunal has rejected above mentioned O.A. Petitioner has further prayed for writ of certiorari to quash communications dated 8.10.2015 and 30.10.2015, issued by respondent-3 (Annexure-6 to writ petition). Petitioner has also prayed for mandamus commanding respondent-3 to consider petitioner's claim for appointment under LARSGESS Scheme and offer him appointment if he is otherwise found eligible.
3. Perusal of record shows that Sharda Prasad father of petitioner was serving on the post of Traffic Porter (Operating Department). Railways issued notification dated 24.8.2012 whereby, LARSGESS Scheme was floated. Accordingly, Sharda Prasad nominated Aditya Singh for appointment on his seeking voluntary retirement. According to petitioner, aforesaid nomination was kept pending without taking any consequential action thereon. Ultimately, vide letter dated 25.2.2015, Aditya Singh was called for document verification and Medical examination on the date time and place mentioned in letter dated 25.2.2015. Aditya Singh duly appeared before competent authority as per letter dated 25.2.2015 but found medically unfit. Consequently, respondent-3 issued letter dated 20.5.2015 informing Aditya Singh that he cannot be offered appointment under LARSGESS Scheme. Father of petitioner thereafter, submitted an application requesting therein that his younger son namely, Ajit Singh Yadav be offered appointment under LARSGESS Scheme. Aforesaid request of Sharda Prasad was denied vide letter dated 8.10.2015 issued by respondent-3 stating therein that since candidature of elder son of Sharda Prasad has already been examined and declared medically unfit, he may apply for appointment for his another ward against next notification. Ultimately, vide communication dated 30.10.2015, representation of Sharda Prasad father of petitioner for granting appointment to petitioner under LARSGESS Scheme was rejected.
4. Challenging communications dated 8.10.2005 and 30.10.2015, petitioner filed above mentioned O.A. before Tribunal and also claim appointment under LARSGESS Scheme. Above mentioned O.A. has been rejected by Tribunal vide order dated 6.10.2016.
5. Tribunal has rejected the claim of petitioner on the grounds that petitioner was never nominated by his father for appointment nor father of the applicant was impleaded as a party in O.A. Petitioner has no claim to get himself appointed in place of his brother as he was declared medically unfit. Furthermore, as applicant was not nominated by his father under the scheme, he was not medically examined at any stage.
6. Challenging the order of Tribunal, learned counsel for petitioner submits that claim of petitioner for appointment under LARSGESS Scheme has been denied only on account of delay of answering respondents. Elder brother of applicant was nominated by father of petitioner vide letter dated 24.8.2012. For two year, no action was taken and ultimately, a letter dated 25.2.2015 was sent asking elder brother of petitioner to report on the date time and place mentioned in aforesaid letter. Consequently, elder brother of petitioner reported but was declared medically unfit. Thereafter, communication dated 20.5.2015 was issued negating claim of elder brother of petitioner for appointment under LARSGESS Scheme. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that if answering respondents has deligently responded to the Application for appointment pertaining to elder brother of petitioner then claim of petitioner could have been considered. Since delay has been caused by answering respondents themselves, claim of petitioner is liable to be considered.
7. Argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner is wholly misconceived. Once there was no nomination in favour of petitioner, he could not be considered for appointment under LARSGESS Scheme.
8. Further we find that aforesaid scheme was held to be ultra-virus of the fundamental rights as guaranteed by Constitution of India by a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana, High Court in CWP No. 7714 of 2016 on 27.4.2016 and RA-CW-330-2017 on 14.7.2017, which was confirmed by Supreme Court while dismissing SLP (C) No. 508 of 2018 on 8.1.2018. Consequently, Railways terminated the said Scheme with effect from 27.10.2017. Hence no benefit can be graned under the said scheme to petitioner on date.
9. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Arshad