JAGDISH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioners have prayed for following relief,

(2.) Heard learned advocate, Ms. Kajal Kalwani for the petitioners.

(3.) Learned advocate has referred to the averments made in the memo of petition and submitted that the petitioner no.1 was serving as Sr. Cleaner in SSE (Elec) (TL) Rajkot and the petitioners submitted an applications in the year 2010, 2011 and 2012 under the prevailing scheme i.e. Liberalised Active Retirement Scheme (LARGESS) for the employement of his son on appropriate post. The petitioner no.2 is the son of the petitioner no.1. The respondent, vide communication dtd. 6/9/2013, rejected the representation made by the petitioner no.1 on the ground that the petitioner no.1 has not completed 20 years qualifying services and, therefore, his case cannot be considered under LARGESS scheme. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the said letter/ order dtd. 6/9/2013 before the Tribunal by filing OA No.285/2013 along with MA No.305/2013. The Tribunal disposed of the said application by an order dtd. 31/1/2017 without entertainig the merits or de-merits of the matter. In the meantime, the petitioner no.1 retired from the services on attaining the age of superannuation on 30/6/2016. Thereafter on 26/9/2018 and 28/9/2018, the respondent - Railway Board issued letter for termination of LARGESS scheme w.e.f. 27/10/2017. The petitioner no.1 submitted representations dtd. 30/11/2018 and 27/2/2019 and requested the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner no.2 for the appointment under the LARGESS scheme. The said request was rejected and, therefore, the petitioners challenged the rejection of the request by filing OA No.275/2019 with MA No.286/2019 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, who by impugned order dtd. 20/8/2019, dismissed the said application submitted by the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, preferred the present petition.