OA No.060/00042/2017. Case: Arun Kumar Vs 1. Union of India, through its General Manage 2. Divisional Railway Manager 3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | OA No.060/00042/2017 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Siwatch, Advocate |
| Judges | Mr. M.S. Sullar, Member (J) and Mrs. Rajwant Sandhu, Member (A) |
| Issue | Administrative Law |
| Judgement Date | January 12, 2017 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
Mr. M.S. Sullar, Member (J)( Chandigarh Bench) (Oral)
-
Heard.
-
Issue notice to the respondents.
-
At this stage, Mr. Lakhinder Bir Singh, Advocate appears, accepts notices on behalf of all the respondents.
-
The epitome of the facts and material, relevant for deciding the instant Original Application (OA), and exposited from the record, is that, request of applicant, Arun Kumar S/o Sh. Satpal, for appointment in place of his father under the LARSGESS Scheme was rejected vide orders dated 05.01.2016 (Annexure A-1), 25.05.2015 (Annexure A-2) and 24.06.2014 (Annexure A-3) by the Competent Authority of the Railway.
-
Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has preferred the instant OA, seeking to quash the impugned orders dated 05.01.2016 (Annexure A-1), 25.05.2015 (Annexure A-2) and 24.06.2014 (Annexure A-3) with a further direction to the respondents to appoint him under the LARSGESS Scheme.
-
At the very outset, 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 by a Division Bench 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial