Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 23.04.2025
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, CGSC
Through: Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Adv.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL. 23400/2025 (Exemption)
2. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “learned Tribunal”) in O.A. No.2597/2023, titled “Ashish Dhiman v. Union of India & Ors.” (in short, ‘OA’), allowing the said OA filed by the respondent herein with the following direction: W.P.(C) 5125/2025 & CM APPL. 23399/2025 “ 5.[2] In view of the above, the following orders are passed:
(i) Order dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure A-1),
Show Cause Notice dated 9.09.2016 (Annexure A-2) and order dated 19.12.2019 which are the basis of the order dated 11.07.2023 are quashed;
(ii) Late Shri Suresh Kumar, father of the applicant shall be treated as retired on voluntary retirement under the LARSGESS Scheme with effect from 2.06.2016. The order dated 19.12.2019 vide which the appointment of the applicant has been withdrawn with immediate effect, is quashed. The applicant shall be taken back m service immediately with all consequential benefits.” To give a brief background of facts in which the present petition arises, the father of the respondent- late Sh. Suresh Kumar was initially appointed on casual basis in 1987. He was later appointed as a Khallasi against a regular sanctioned post ‘on substitute basis’ with effect from 26.04.1988. He was regularised in the said post of Khallasi with effect from 31.12.1996. He submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement under the LARSGESS scheme in the year 2014- 15, which was accepted by the petitioner with effect from 02.06.2016. In accordance with the said scheme, the respondent was then appointed as a helper Khallasi, with effect from the same date i.e. 02.06.2016.
3. The petitioners claim that at the time of finalisation of settlement of the case of the father of the respondent, his leave account was rechecked and an error was found in calculation of ‘leave without pay’, which was earlier counted as 670 days instead of 1056 days. The petitioners claimed that if the excess period of ‘leave without pay’ is excluded, the father of the respondent would have rendered service of only 19 years 5 months and 6 days from the date of his regular appointment till 31.12.2014, thereby not entitling him to the benefit of the LARSGESS scheme, which required a minimum of 20 years of service. The petitioner, therefore, issued a Show Cause Notice dated 09.09.2016 to the father of the respondent, and vide Order 22.11.2016, withdrew the grant of VRS to the father of the respondent and cancelled the appointment of the respondent. The said orders were challenged by the respondent herein and his father by way of O.A. NO. 4459/2018 and O.A. No. 99/2020 respectively.
4. The same were disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide an order dated 09.09.2020, with the following direction:
5. In compliance with the said order, the petitioner, by an order dated 13.02.2021, treated the father of the respondent as having superannuated on his normal retirement date and settled his retirement dues. The petitioners also terminated the services of the respondent stating that as the father of the respondent had not completed 20 years of qualifying service at the relevant time, and the acceptance of his voluntary retirement was an administrative error, the respondent was not entitled to be appointed in service.
6. The same was challenged by the respondent by way of O.A. NO. 1023/2021, which was disposed of by the learned Tribunal by way of the order dated 04.05.2023, holding as under:
the contents of representation of the applicant. The direction contained herein shall be complied within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”
7. The petitioner again passed an order dated 11.07.2023, rejecting the claim of the respondent for appointment. The same was challenged by the respondent in form of the said OA.
8. The learned Tribunal, by its Impugned Order, has held that the father of the respondent had completed his qualifying service on the day his application for VRS had been accepted by the petitioners. The learned Tribunal in reaching the said conclusion placed reliance on Rule 31 and 32 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 to hold that the period for which the father of the respondent had worked as a casual employee and on substituted basis, has to be counted towards his qualifying service.
9. As far as the claim of the respondent that even the ‘leave without pay’ of the father of the respondent should have been counted for the calculation of the qualifying service, the learned Tribunal, however, found no merit and rejected his claim.
10. In spite of the issue of ‘leave without pay’ being not entitled to be counted towards the service period of the father of the respondent for determining his entitlement to VRS, the learned Tribunal found that the father of the respondent had completed the qualifying service and therefore, his request for VRS was rightly accepted under the LARSGESS scheme and the respondent was rightly granted appointment under the said scheme.
11. Strangely, the learned counsel for the petitioner challenges Impugned order contending that the period when the father of the respondent was on ‘leave without pay’ should not be counted towards his qualifying service. We state that the submission is strange because the said submission of the petitioners has been accepted by the learned Tribunal and we, therefore, fail to understand as to why it is being challenged herein.
12. As far as there is no challenge made by the learned counsel for the petitioners on counting of the period when the father of the respondent was working as a casual employee or on substitute basis, and on the finding of the learned Tribunal that if these periods are counted, father of the respondent would in fact have completed the period of service of 20 years as required under the LARSGESS scheme, we therefore, find no no merit in the present petition.
13. The same is accordingly dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J APRIL 23, 2025/Pr/Kz/VS Click here to check corrigendum, if any