The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Court held the Tribunal's order implied the quashed LARSGESS Scheme's application was under valid consideration, but dismissed the petition finding no merit as the Tribunal did not dispose of the matter.
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.
2024:MHC:3531
W.P.No.28905 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.No.28905 of 2024
C.Rajendran
... Petitioner
vs
2.The Senior Divisional personnel Officer Salem Division Southern Railway, Salem. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the Impugned Order in O.A.No.350 of 2022 dated 02.04.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal quash the same and further direct the Respondents to appoint the son of the petitioner under LARSGES Scheme were the petitioner's son is found to fit and eligible for the consequential post of Track Maintainer.
1/4
W.P.No.28905 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.V.V.Sathya
For Respondents: Ms.D.Reshma for Dr.D.Simon, Central Government Standing Counsel
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH.,J) The petitioner had assailed order dated 30.04.2021 conveying that
the representation of the petitioner for appointment under the LARGESS Scheme was under scrutiny and consideration before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/Tribunal).
3.The challenge in the case of Manjith & others related to the Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety (LARSGESS) Scheme (in short, 'Scheme'). The Scheme had been formulated for providing entry into service for wards of serving employees. The Supreme Court noted that the Scheme enabled the wards to be brought on board without undergoing competitive selection.
1 AIR 2021 SC 944
2/4
W.P.No.28905 of 2024
mode of entry through the back door.
to the effect that the application of the petitioner is under consideration is itself wholly illegal as that order is dated 30.04.2021 whereas the judgment in the case of Manjit & Others is dated 29.01.2021.
dismissed. No costs.
[A.S.M., J] [G.A.M., J] 03.10.2024
Index:Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes vs
To
3/4
W.P.No.28905 of 2024
DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J. and G. ARUL MURUGAN.,J
vs
W.P.No.28905 of 2024
03.10.2024
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal finding the petitioner's application under the quashed LARSGESS Scheme was under scrutiny and consideration was legally sustainable.
Whether the order dated 30.04.2021 regarding the petitioner's application was illegal in light of the Supreme Court judgment dated 29.01.2021 quashing the said scheme.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manjit and others v. Union of India and anotherReferred¶22
1 AIR 2021 SC 944 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
C. Rajendran
Union of India Rep. by G.M. Southern Railway Park Town
Senior Divisional Personnel Officer Salem Division
Dr. Anita Sumanth
G. Arul Murugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
