SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 27.04.2018. The Tribunal by the aforesaid judgment has decided the bunch of the O.As. The dispute pertains to appointment under the Liberalised Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (LARSGESS) by the railways in terms of policy of the Railways. The aforesaid policy was declared violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and it was held that the scheme is a device evolved by the Railways to make backdoor entries in public employment, which brazenly militates against equality in public employment.

(2.) The Railways approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP No.4482/2017, which was dismissed on 06.03.2017. While dismissing the said SLP, the Supreme Court observed that the Railways are not debarred from moving the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for ventilating their grievances as they were not heard while passing the order dated 27.04.2016. The Railways then filed review petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which too was dismissed on 14.07.2017. After dismissal of the review petition, the Railways issued a Circular on 27.10.2017 directing to keep the LARSGESS on hold till further orders. The Railways then also filed Special Leave Petition No.87470/2017 against the judgment dismissing the review petition. This SLP was also dismissed on 08.01.2018. While dismissing the SLP, the Supreme Court issued directions to the Railways to take a conscious decision in the matter within a period of six weeks. It was observed that if any party is affected by the decision taken, such party may take remedy in accordance with law.

(3.) The stand of the respondents before the Tribunal was that so far no decision pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court dated 08.01.2018 has been taken by the Railways and that the respondents were still in the process of taking decision as per the order of the Supreme Court. It is in these facts that the Tribunal disposed of the OA with the observation that after re-visitation of LARSGESS by the Railways in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court, if any party feels aggrieved, the matter can be re- agitated in accordance with law before the competent forum having jurisdiction over the matter.