Dismissed¶9

Roshan Lal Saini v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC7 Aug 2025W.P.(C)/11232/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

LARSGESS; Safety Related Retirement Scheme; Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff; Indian Railways; scheme withdrawal letter 29.06.2018; pre-withdrawal application 01.09.2013; vested right; legitimate expectation; Article 16 of the Constitution; Manjit & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (2021) 14 SCC 48; Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench; O.A. No.270/2017; Kishori Lal Saini; Roshan Lal Saini; W.P.(C) 11232/2022; High Court of Delhi; petition dismissed; grade pay and date of appointment claims left to appropriate remedies.

What did the court decide?

The Court rejected the petitioner-counsel's submission that the petitioner's claim must be adjudged on the basis of the LARSGESS Scheme as it existed on the date of his father's application. ¶7

Roshan Lal Saini Vs Union of India and Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner was entitled to appointment under the Safety Related Retirement Scheme (LARSGESS) on the basis of his father's application dated 01.09.2013, the claim to be adjudged according to the Scheme as it existed on the date of application. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

The Court rejected the petitioner-counsel's submission that the petitioner's claim must be adjudged on the basis of the LARSGESS Scheme as it existed on the date of his father's application.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

In view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Manjit & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., (2021) 14 SCC 48 (whereby claims under the terminated Scheme were held incapable of supporting a vested right or legitimate expectation and were directed to be closed), this Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's Impugned Order and dismissed the petition.

¶9

Key takeaways

Other claims of the petitioner's father concerning his grade pay and the date of his appointment were expressly left out of the scope of the petition, with liberty to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law.obiter¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (W.P.(C) 11232/2022, High Court of Delhi, decision dated 07.08.2025; Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain, JJ.; opinion by Navin Chawla, J.) by Roshan Lal Saini challenged the Order dated 25.01.2019 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, dismissing O.A. No.270/2017 (Kishori Lal Saini, Group-D & Anr. v. Union of India through the Secretary & Ors.). The O.A. had sought appointment under the Indian Railways Safety Related Retirement Scheme (LARSGESS) on the strength of the petitioner-father's application dated 01.09.2013 — prior to the Scheme's withdrawal vide Railways letter dated 29.06.2018 — after respondent No.3 had rejected the claim vide order dt.14.10.16 (Annexure A/1). Counsel argued eligibility ought to be judged by the Scheme as it stood on the application date. The Court, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Manjit & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., (2021) 14 SCC 48 — wherein the terminated Scheme (described as an avenue of back door entry at odds with Article 16 of the Constitution) was held to confer neither a vested right nor a legitimate expectation and all claims under it were directed to be closed — found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order and dismissed the petition. Claims regarding the father's grade pay and date of appointment were expressly left open for appropriate remedies.

¶1

$~15

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 07.08.2025

¶4

W.P.(C) 11232/2022 ROSHAN LAL SAINI .....Petitioner Through: Ms.Gunjan Sinha Jain and Ms.Meetu, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr.Sushil Raaja, SPC with Mr.Prashant Rawat, GP and Mr.Vicky Kumar and Mr.Kabir Singh, Advs.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

¶9

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶10

This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.270/2017, titled Kishori Lal Saini, Group-D & Anr. v. Union of India through the Secretary & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioner herein.

¶11

The petitioner had filed the above O.A., praying for the following reliefs:

¶12

“a) Directing the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present O.A. before their Lordships for the proper adjudication in the matter,

¶13

W.P.(C) 11232/2022

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

in the interest of justice. (b) Quash and setting aside the impugned order dt.14.10.16 (Annexure A/1) issued by the respondent No.3 rejecting the claim of the applicant No.2 for appointment whereas the applicant is entitled for appointment under the provisions stipulated under safety related retirement scheme (LARSGESS) Scheme and thereafter;

¶16

(c) Directing the respondents to consider and finalize the case of the applicants pending in the shape of representation (Annexure A/9) in terms of the provisions stipulated under Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff keeping in view services from 02.05.74 including the services rendered under Territorial Army for computing the qualifying service and make the appointment accordingly with all other consequently benefits and cost.

¶17

(d) Any other fit and proper relief may also be granted to the applicants.”

¶18

From the above prayers, it would be apparent that the petitioner was seeking appointment under the provisions of the Safety Related Retirement Scheme (LARSGESS) of the Indian Railways.

¶19

As far as the said Scheme is concerned, it was withdrawn by the Indian Railways vide letter dated 29.06.2018. The said letter has been reproduced by the learned Tribunal in its Impugned Order and, therefore, we refrain from reproducing the same herein.

¶20

The sole plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner had applied under the said Scheme on 01.09.2013, that is, much prior to its withdrawal. The said claim, however, was wrongly rejected by the respondents, leading to the filing of the above O.A. before the learned Tribunal.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, therefore, the petitioner’s claim must be adjudged on the basis of the Scheme as

¶22

W.P.(C) 11232/2022

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

it existed on the date of the application, and if found eligible thereunder, the petitioner ought to have been granted the appointment. 7. We are unable to accept the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

The Supreme Court, in its Judgment in Manjit & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., (2021) 14 SCC 48, has rejected a similar plea of an applicant therein by observing as under:

¶26

“6. The reliefs which have been sought in the present case, as already noted earlier, are for a writ of mandamus to the Union of India to appoint the petitioners in their respective cadres. A conscious decision has been taken by the Union of India to terminate the Scheme. This has been noticed in the order of this Court dated 6 March 2019, which has been extracted above. While taking this decision on 5 March 2019, the Union of India had stated that where wards had completed all formalities prior to 27 October 2017 (the date of termination of the Scheme) and were found fit, since the matter was pending consideration before this Court, further instructions would be issued in accordance with the directions of this Court. Noticing the above decision, this Court, in its order dated 6 March 2019, specifically observed that since the Scheme stands terminated and is no longer in existence, nothing further need be done in the matter. 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 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.”

¶27

In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the Impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶28

W.P.(C) 11232/2022

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are certain other claims of the father of the petitioner with respect to his grade pay and the date of his appointment. These issues are not to be determined in the present petition. In case there are any such claims, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

¶31

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶32

MADHU JAIN, J

¶33

AUGUST 7, 2025 /ns/DG

¶34

W.P.(C) 11232/2022

¶35

Page 4 of 4

Roshan Lal Saini v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Lal Saini v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indira Menon Vs Delhi Police Licensing Department

Lt Col Samir Kumar Singh Vs Army Group Insurance Fund and Ors.

Manisha Sejwal Vs Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board & Anr.

Samast Jawala Heri Gaon Residents Welfare Association (Regd.) Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Ramesh Singh Vs the Regional Labour Commissioner Central & Anr.

Manoj Chauhan Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 5 & Anr.

Quattro Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit Circle 19(1), Delhi

Sangeeta Negi Vs Bharti Public School, through Its Manager & Ors.

Manisha Sejwal Vs Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board & Anr.

Kanwar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs Hitesh Khurana

Chaturbhuj Rathore Vs Union of India & Ors.

Union of India Vs Raj Bala and Ors.

Raj Bala Vs Union of India and Ors.

Saurabh Kumar Mallick Vs Union of India & Anr.