Surinder Singh and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.

1. Petitioners in W.P.(C)Nds.10703/2019 and 10693/2019 impugn judgments dated 18.08.2017.and 16.01.20J[9] respectively, passed in their respective Original Applications,.whereby the Original Applications seeking grant of benefits under the Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employee for Safety Staff (in short,'LARSGESS Scheme^'jlwasjfismi^ed-Ljj

2. Petitioners/Union of India in W.P.(C) Nos. 755/2017 and 2607/2017 impugn judgments dated 09.09.2016 and 17.10.2016 respectively,passed in the respective Original Applications,whereby a direction has been issued to the Petitioner/Union of India to grant benefitto the Petitioners therein ofthe LARSGESS Scheme.

3. Petitioners in the Original Applications before the Tribunal had all claimed benefits under the LARSGESS Scheme. Petitioners had failed to qualify the aptitude test in their first attempt and were seeking a direction for extension ofthe benefit ofa second chance to appear in the aptitude test.

4. As noticed hereinabove, two Original Applications were dismissed whiletwo other Original Applications were allowed.

5. Original Applications which were dismissed, were dismissed referring to the order of Punjab and Haryana High Court requiring Union ofIndia to reconsider the Scheme, Said-direction was issued by Punjab and Haryana High Court in successive petitions noticing that the Scheme provided for an entry to the Service without undergoing a competitive selection process.::

6. Allthe Original Appl^ahts0ji4hc^^ petitions are the ones who have not qualified thei^]^de;^esil;m';fe first attempt and are seeking a second opportunity atthe-aptitude test.

7. Judgment of the Punjab -and Haryana High Court became subject matter ofchallenge in SLP(C)568^2018,wherein the Supreme Court by order dated 08.01.2018 directed Union of India to take a conscious decision in the matter.

8. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court of India, Union of India on 05.03.2019 took a decision to terminate the Scheme. The decision of the Union ofIndia dated 06.03.2019 is as under l[5] "In compliance ofthe directions of the Hon'hle Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 27.04.2016 in CWP No.7714 of2016, dated 14.07.2017 in RA-CW-330-2017 and Orders ofHon'hie Supreme Courtdated 08.01.2018 in SLP(C)No.508/2018, Ministry ofRailways have revisited the LARSGESS Scheme duly obtaining legal opinion and consulted Ministry ofLaw and Justice. Accordingly, it has been decided to terminate the LARSGESS Scheme w.e.f. 27.10.2017 i.e. the date from which it was put on hold. Therefore, nofurther appointments should be made under theSchemesubjecttoposition mentionedinpara2below.

2. As regards the cases where the wards had completed all formalities including Medical Examination under LARSGESS Scheme prior to 27.10.2017 and werefound fit, but the employees are yet to: retire, the matter is pending consideration before ihie.Hon'ble Supreme Court andfurther instructions would be issuedasper direction of the Hon'ble Court." ^

9. Pursuant to the said: ''ddpision, of the Union of India, miscellaneous application was filed b'eforP the Supreme Court in SLP

(C) No.508/2018, titled Union ofIhdhfys^Kala Singh and Ors. On

06.03.2019,Supreme Court hotiemg:tibp-;d6m ofthe Union ofIndia •. •/// - -I' to terminate the LARSGESS Scheme,held that nothing further needed to be done in the matter as the Scheme stood teminated.

10. Subsequently,a writ petition under Article 32 ofthe Constitution ofIndia was filed before the Supreme Court, being W.P.(C)78/2021, titled Manjitand Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia and Anr. An issue was raised in the said petition with regard to certain individuals, who had completed all formalities prior to 27.10.2017(the date oftermination of Scheme) and were found fit, however, they were not granted appointment. In the said writ petition, by judgment dated 29.01.2021, the Supreme Courtheld as under "6. The reliefs which have been sought in the present case, as already noted earlier, arefor a writofmandamus to the Union ofIndia to appoint the petitioners in their respective cadres. A conscious decision has been taken by the Union ofIndia to terminate the Scheme. This has been noticed in the order of this Court dated 6 March 2019, which has been extracted above. While taking this decision on 5 March 2019, the Union ofIndia had stated that where wards had completed allformalitiesprior to 27 October 2017(the date oftermination ofthe Scheme)and werefoundfit, since the matter waspending consideration before this Court,further instructions would be issued in accordance with the directionfdfjfhis Court. Noticing the above decision, tMslGowt/Jnfits;:^^^ dated 6 March 2019, specifically observed thdtfince the Scheme stands terminated and is no Ipftger in existence, nothingfurther need be done in the matter: The Scheme providedfor an avenue of a back dpornentr^ into the service of the railways. This wouldihpfi fi i^^ atodds with Article 16 ofthe ConstitiAjphfThellJni^ has with justification discontiJ0e00w)S^pfi^ The petitioners can claim neither a vested^righty ndr a legitimate expectation undersuch a Scheme. Allclaims based on the Scheme must now be closed. f-y

7. In view ofthe abovefactual background, we are not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32. The grantofreliefs to thepetitioners wouldonly enable them to seek a back door entry contrary to the orders ofthis Court. The Union ofIndia has correctly terminated the Scheme and thatdecision continues to stand."

11. It may be noticed that even to those individuals who had completed all the formalities prior to 27.10.2017 and were found fit. Supreme Court has not been inclined to grant any reliefon the ground that the Scheme stands terminated and is no longer in existence. The Supreme Court has noticed that the Scheme provided for an avenue of a back door entry into the service of the Railways, which would be fundamentally at odds with Article 16 ofthe Constitution ofIndia and Petitioners therein could neither claim a vested right nor have a legitimate expectation under such a Scheme. I