The High Court allowed the petitioner's challenge to the Central Administrative Tribunal's order under Article 227 regarding eligibility for the LARSGESS scheme. It upheld the Tribunal's view that qualifying service must be rendered specifically in 'safety category' posts and cannot include service in non-safety categories.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2016/5TH SRAVANA, 1938
OP (CAT).No. 197 of 2016 (Z)
O.A.NO.180/137/2015 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 04.02.2016
PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANT IN OA:
KUZHITHURAI RAILWAY STATION,
TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,
(RESIDING AT PRANIVILLAI, PAGOD POST,
KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT)
BY ADV. SRI.E.C.POULOSE
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN THE OA:
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI-3
2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM - 695014
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR ESTT.(P & A)II, RAILWAY BOARD, RAILWAY BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001
BY SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC, RAILWAYS
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (CAT).No. 197 of 2016 (Z)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------------------EXHIBIT:P1 TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO. 180/137/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRL ADMISISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULM
EXHIBIT:P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4/2/16 IN O.A.180/137/2015 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
NIL
//True Copy//
P.A. To Judge
Bb
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.
....................................................
O.P.(CAT.)No.197 of 2016
....................................................
Dated this the 27th July, 2016
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner is the applicant in O.A.No.137/2015 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. He has filed the said O.A. seeking an order to quash Annexures A5 and A6
and for a declaration that he is eligible to get the benefit of Liberalised Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (hereinafter referred to as 'LARSGESS') on the basis of Annexure A3 application and to direct the respondents to consider his son for appointment on the basis of the said declaration. The Tribunal by Ext.P2 order dated 4.2.2016 dismissed the said O.A. holding that the petitioner is not having the minimum qualifying service in the 'safety category' in order to claim the benefit of LARSGESS. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this in this Original Petition seeking interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
petitioner.
O.P.(CAT)No.197 of 2016
-2-
that the applicant is working as a Sweeper cum Porter at Kuzhithurai Railway Station in Southern Railway Trivandrum Division. In the year 1992, the applicant was engaged by the Railways as Sanitary Cleaner in the Medical Department. While continuing as such, the applicant and others, who have been rendered surplus in the Medical Department and found fit in the medical classification 'A-2' were re-deployed as Sanitary Cleaner cum Porter, vide Annexure A1 office order dated 14.7.2010. Sanitary Cleaner cum Porter/Traffic Porter is a 'safety staff' in the Operating Department of the Railways.
O.P.(CAT)No.197 of 2016 -3-
the age group of 50-57 and having a minimum qualifying service of 20 years as on 1.7.2014, are eligible to seek voluntary retirement. The request for voluntary retirement will be considered only when the ward is considered suitable for appointment in all respects, i.e., the conditions of eligibility for direct recruitment. The eligible ward will be appointed in lowest recruitment grade of the respective categories in which the employee belongs.
O.P.(CAT)No.197 of 2016 -4-
application for appointment, in terms of Annexure A2 notification. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions, dismissed the O.A. by Ext.P2 order dated 04.02.2016, holding that the applicant is not having the minimum qualifying service in the 'safety category' for claiming the benefit of LARSGESS.
O.P.(CAT)No.197 of 2016 -5-
category post for being eligible for voluntary retirement under LARSGESS is legally permissible, and the said benefit was extended to Smt.K.T. Lallamma, who was rendered surplus in the Medical Department and re-deployed along with the applicant as Sanitary Cleaner cum Porter, vide Annexure A1 office order dated 14.7.2010.
O.P.(CAT)No.197 of 2016 -6-
weather conditions.
O.P.(CAT)No.197 of 2016 -7-
safety categories of staff with Grade Pay of Rs.1,800/-, by modifying the nomenclature of the scheme as Liberalised Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (LARSGESS) with Grade Pay of Rs.1,800/-. Under the modified scheme, the qualifying service has been reduced from 33 years to 20 years and the eligible age group from 55-57 years to 50-57 years. Under LARSGESS employment is guaranteed only to those employees found eligible/suitable and finally selected as per the prescribed procedure. The retirement of the employee will be considered only if the ward is found suitable in all respects. Therefore, under LARSGESS the retirement of the employee and appointment of the ward should take place simultaneously.
“Annexure to Railway Board's letter No. No.E(P&A)/I2010/RT-2 dated 11.9.2010. Safety Categories with Grade Pay of Rs.1,800/-
A. Operating Department:
• Pointsman
O.P.(CAT)No.197 of 2016
-8-
B. Civil Engineering Department:
C. Signal & Telecommunication Department:
D. Mechanical & Electrical Department:
Though the Annexure to RBE No.131/2010 forms an integral part of the Liberalised Active Retirement Scheme, for reasons best known to the applicant, the said Annexure does not form part of Annexure A4 Railway Board's letter dated 11.9.2010 produced before the Tribunal.
O.P.(CAT)No.197 of 2016
-9-
was followed by Railway Board's letter No.E(P&A)/I-2010/RT-2 dated 24.9.2010, by which the benefit under the Liberalised Active Retirement Scheme has been extended to Gangman/Trackman, subject to fulfillment of identical conditions stipulated for other safety categories. Later, by Railway Board's letter No.E(P&A)/I-2010/RT-2 dated 28.6.2011, permission has been granted for expansion of the scheme to those in the safety categories mentioned in the Railway Board's letters dated 11.9.2010, with a Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/-. However, the eligibility conditions for safety staff with a Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/- shall be the same as those for Drivers, i.e., 33 years of qualifying service and within the age group of 55-57 years. The eligibility conditions in the case of Gangmen and other safety categories in the Grade Pay of Rs.1,800/- shall remain as 20 years of qualifying service and within the age group of 50-57 years. Still later, by Railway Board's letter No.E(P&A)/I-2010/RT2 dated 3.1.2012, the post of Trolleyman of Departments other than Civil Engineering has also been included in the list of safety
O.P.(CAT)No.197 of 2016
-10-
categories, for extending the benefit under the Liberalised Active Retirement Scheme.
O.P.(CAT)No.197 of 2016
-11-
No. No.E(P&A)/I-2011/RT-6 dated 11.3.2013, the National Federation of Indian Railwaymen (NFIR) had raised an issue regarding reckoning of 20 years of qualifying service in respect of those staff who have rendered service in both 'non-safety' and 'safety' category post for being eligible for voluntary retirement under LARSGESS. The Railway Board vide Annexure A5 has clarified that, 20 years of qualifying service should be in the specified 'safety category' posts indicated in the list annexed to Railway Board's letter No.E(P&A)/I-2010/RT-2 dated 11.9.2010, 28.6.2011 and 3.1.2012.
O.P.(CAT)No.197 of 2016 -12-
benefit under LARSGESS extended to Smt.K.T. Lallamma, the Railway Board insisted on qualifying service of 20 years in safety category post itself, vide Annexure A5 clarification dated 11.3.2013.
SCC 436) the Apex Court has reiterated that, Article 14 of the
O.P.(CAT)No.197 of 2016 -13-
Constitution of India is not meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equality. Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief.
O.P.(CAT)No.197 of 2016 -14-
clarification dated 11.3.2013 issued by the Railway Board or in
Annexure A6 communication dated 5.11.2014 of the 2nd respondent, rejecting Annexure A4 application filed by the applicant for voluntary retirement under LARSGESS, for the reason that the applicant does not have the requisite qualifying service of 20 years in 'safety category', as insisted by RBE No.131/2010 and the additions/clarifications made thereunder. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in repelling the challenge made by the appellant against Annexures A5 and A6. In the result, the Original Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN,
JUDGE
Bb/29.07.2016
[True copy] P.A to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether qualifying service for the Liberalised Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (LARSGESS) can be reckoned from posts in non-safety categories.
Whether Original Petition challenging the Tribunal's dismissal of a writ petition filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal succeeds.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Orissa v. Mamata MohantyRelied on¶99
State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty (2011 (3) SCC 436) · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
J. Palayan
Union of India
P.R. Ramachandra Menon
Anil K. Narendran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
