Scheme Providing Backdoor Entry Into Service Violates Article 16 : Supreme Court On Railways LARGESS Scheme

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reiterated that the Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff notified by the Railways ("LARSGESS Scheme") provides an avenue for backdoor entry into service and is contrary to the mandate of Article 16 which guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment.The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna was considering civil appeals assailing Madras High Court's judgements dated March 21, 2018 and September 3, 2019.In the judgment dated March 21, 2018, the High Court had directed the Railways to consider granting appointment to the ward of the worker who was working as Senior Trolley man in any post in CEE ONE and below categories.In the judgment dated September 3, 2019 the High Court had held that though the LARSGESS scheme was terminated, since ward's father superannuated on 1 January 2015 prior to 27 January 2017, the benefit of the scheme could be extended to him in terms of the notification dated 28 September 2018.While allowing the appeal(s) and setting aside the impugned judgment(s) the bench in The Chief Personnel Officer & Ors. v. A Nishanth George and The General Manager Vs. P. Balamurugan observed,"We have addressed in detail the history of the LARSGESS scheme and the doubt expressed on its validity by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kala Singh (supra) which eventually led to the decision of the Union government to terminate the scheme. While noticing the above backdrop, the three judge Bench of this Court in Manjit (supra) clearly noted that the Scheme provided an avenue for backdoor entry into service and was contrary to the mandate of Article 16 which guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment. In this backdrop, the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madras issuing a mandamus for the appointment of the respondent cannot be sustained."Factual Background Of Chief Personnel Officer & Ors. v. A Nishanth GeorgeRespondent's father who was working as Senior Trolley man in Southern Railways opted for voluntary retirement under LARSGESS scheme on September 29, 2011 and sought respondent's appointment. Although the respondent qualified the written examination, he was found medically unfit for the appointment to the post of Trackman under the scheme since he was not fit in class CEE ONE and below. Aggrieved, the respondent moved the Madras Bench of CAT praying for his appointment under the scheme. While disposing of the case on April 1, 2016 the Tribunal directed the Railways to consider his case for appointment to any post of CEE ONE and below.Since respondent's claim was once again rejected on May 31, 2016, he once again moved an OA before the Tribunal. On March 24, 2017 the Tribunal directed the Railways to consider the respondent in a post according to his medical fitness (CEE ONE and below). In 2017, the respondent approached the High Court seeking issuance of directions for complying with the Tribunal's order dated March 24, 2017 which was granted by the High Court.On January 17, 2018 the Divisional Officer of the Southern Railway issued a communication negating respondent's claim of the respondent on the ground that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had held that the LARSGESS Scheme was contrary to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. On March 21, 2018 the High Court while dealing with respondent's plea concluded that rejection of the claim was in disregard of the order of the Tribunal dated 24 March 2017. While allowing the petition, the High Court directed the Railways to comply with the order dated 24 March 2017, granting appointment to the respondent in any post in CEE ONE and below categories.Factual Background Of The General Manager Vs. P. BalamuruganRespondent's father who was a Senior Trackman in Southern Railway had submitted an application for voluntary retirement under the LARSGESS Scheme on December 2, 2010. Pursuant to submitting two applications for retirement, the respondent's father retired on December 31, 2014. In 2017, the respondent filed an OA seeking issuance of direction to provide employment under the LARSGESS scheme which was dismissed on December 11, 2017.The High Court on September 3, 2019 observed that the date of birth of respondent's father should be reckoned as 16 December 1954 and that in view of the nature of the employment of the respondent's father, he should not be made to suffer for an inadvertent mistake. High Court also held that though the scheme was terminated, since the respondent's father superannuated on 1 January 2015 prior to 27 January 2017, the benefit of the scheme could be extended to him in terms of the notification dated 28 September 2018.Supreme Court's Analysis The bench in the judgment authored by Justice DY Chandrachud firstly determined as to whether the claim of the respondents was covered by the exception clause in the notification issued on 28 September 2018.On 28 September 2018,...

Scheme Providing Backdoor Entry Into Service Violates Article 16 : Supreme Court On Railways LARGESS Scheme

Shruti Kakkar

Tags