Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

OA No.060/00465/205 and MA No.060/01091/2016. Case: 1. Karam Singh 2. Sawroop Lal 3. Karam Chand Vs 1. Union of India, Ministry of Railway through its Secretary 2. Divisional Railway Manager 3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer 4. Senior Section Engineer 5. Assistant Divisional Engineer. Central Administrative Tribunal

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberOA No.060/00465/205 and MA No.060/01091/2016
Party Name1. Karam Singh 2. Sawroop Lal 3. Karam Chand Vs 1. Union of India, Ministry of Railway through its Secretary 2. Divisional Railway Manager 3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer 4. Senior Section Engineer 5. Assistant Divisional Engineer
CounselFor Appellant: Sh. Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate and For Respondents: Sh. G.S. Sathi, Advocate.
JudgesMr. M.S. Sullar, Member (J) and Mrs. Rajwant Sandhu, Member (A)
IssueAdministrative Tribunals, Act 1985 - Section 19
Judgement DateJanuary 02, 2020
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Order:

Mr.M.S. Sullar, Member (J), (Chandigarh Bench), (Oral)

  1. Applicants Karam Singh S/o Ronku Ram, Sawroop Lal S/o Roshan Lal (Gateman/Gatekeeper) and Karam Chand S/o Rattan Chand (Trackman) have preferred the instant Original Application (OA), challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 13.09.2013 (Annexure A-10), and for further directions to the respondents to include the names of their wards in the panel of recruitment and to issue them the appointment letters under the LARSGESS Scheme, invoking the provisions of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals, Act 1985.

  2. The respondents have refuted the claim of the applicants and filed the written statement stoutly denying all the allegations and grounds contended in OA and prayed for its dismissal.

  3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record the copy of order dated 27.04.2016 rendered in the case of Kala Singh and Others Versus Union of India and Others in CWP No.7714 of 2016 of Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court, which in substance is as under:-

    The above-stated Scheme formulated by the respondents in the year 2004 and modified in the year 2010 enables second category job of railway employees to seek 'voluntarily retirement' after they reach the age group of 55-57 years or complete qualifying service of 33 years and they can seek appointment of their wards in their place. Since such wards do not possess the technical know-how of the offered posts, they are sent for training before actual appointment in the Railways. In the instant case, the petitioners voluntarily retired on 28-29 July, 2010 whereas their wards were also offered appointments immediately in the month of July-August, 2010. Such wards were then sent for training and on its completion, they were actually appointed on 26.05.2011. It is in this backdrop that the petitioners sought to postpone the dates of their voluntary retirement from 28-29 July...

To continue reading

Request your trial