Ambika Bhardwaj
Published On: 31 January, 2022 at 17:51 IST
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court in the Case of The Chief Personnel Officer & Ors. v. A Nishanth George and The General Manager v. P. Balamurugan held that Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (“LARSGESS Scheme”) gives a backdoor entry into service and Violates Article 16, which promises equal opportunity in relation to employment.
The Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna was hearing Civil Appeals questioning Madras High Court Judgements dated March 21, 2018 and September 3, 2019.
In the Case of The Chief Personnel Officer & Ors. v. A Nishanth, Respondent’s father who was a Senior Trolleyman with Southern Railways opted for voluntary retirement under the LARSGESS scheme and asked for Respondent’s appointment.
Although the Respondent passed the written examination but he was considered medically unfit for the position under the Scheme because he did not meet the requirements for class CEE ONE and below.
On March 24, 2017, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) instructed the Railways to take into account the Respondent for a position based on his medical fitness (CEE ONE and below), based on the Plea filed by the Respondent.
In 2017, the Respondent moved to the High Court for instructions to abide by the Tribunal’s Order dated March 24, 2017, which was given by the High Court.
In the Case of The General Manager v. P. Balamurugan, Respondent’s father, a Senior Trackman with Southern Railway, applied for voluntary retirement under the LARSGESS Schemeon December 2, 2010.
The Respondent lodged an OA in 2017 asking issuance of an instruction to give employment under the LARSGESS scheme, which was denied on December 11, 2017.
The Bench first decided whether the Respondent’s Assertion was covered by the Exception Clause in the notification released on September 28, 2018.
On September 28, 2018, Railways issued Notification stating that, despite the revocation of the LARSGESS Scheme, appointments under the scheme can only be done if,“The staff voluntarily retired under the scheme before October 27, 2017 and the appointment of the ward was not made due to ‘formalities’.”
The Bench held that the Respondent’s Argument, that the delay could not be attributed because the claims Pending Adjudication before various fora was incorrect.
