CHANDER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was working on the post of Gangman in the Northern Railway has approached this Court claiming that his application for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short "VRS") has been illegally rejected vide order dated 15.01.2008. He sought direction to the respondents to accept his application for VRS and give employment to his son. The petitioner was appointed as Gangman in the Northern Railway on 08.11.1971. The respondent- Railway had introduced a scheme, namely, Safety Related Retirement Scheme - Drivers and Gangman vide order dated 02.01.2004. The petitioner is stated to have applied in the year 2005 under the aforesaid scheme. Had the petitioner succeeded and was granted benefit of VRS then his son could have been given employment in his place for which he had requested. The petitioner claimed that the application filed by him in 2005 was rejected on 15.01.2008 on the ground that he had crossed the upper age limit of 58 years on 30.06.2007. The petitioner claimed that he had applied for VRS under the Scheme well in time and the rejection of his application after crossing the upper age limit on 15.01.2008 cannot be construed to his disadvantage because it was the fault of the respondents who had kept his application pending for three years without any reason. Accordingly the petitioner challenged his rejection order by filing O.A. No. 73-HR-2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity 'the Tribunal'). The order dated 15.01.2008 was set aside and directions were given to respondents to reconsider his claim afresh.

(2.) XXX XXX XXX

(3.) The respondents rejected his case once again on 01.05.2009 on another ground, namely, that he is a casual employee. The claim of the petitioner seeking parity with one Shri Ram Kumar has been answered by stating that Shri Ram Kumar is a regular employee whereas the petitioner was a casual and nonscreened employee. His services were regularized only few months prior to his retirement. The Tribunal has rejected the claim made by the petitioner by observing as under :-