All claims based on the Larsgess Scheme must now be closed: Supreme Court of India
The court dismissed a petition requiring it to invoke Article 32 seeking a grant of relief under Larsgess Scheme that was terminated in 2017. The scheme enabled a certain category of railway employees to seek ‘voluntary retirement’ after they complete a service of 33 years or reach an age group of 55-57 years and can seek appointment of their wards in their place. In the matter of Manjit and Ors vs Union of India and Anr [Writ Petition (Civil) No 78 of 2021], the petition was called on for hearing on 29-01-2021 with a three bench of Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee and Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjiv Khanna.  The dispute in this case was related to the Larsgess Scheme adopted by the Railway Administration. In 2016, Punjab and Haryana High Court asked Union of India to reconsider the scheme since it provided an entry to certain wards without undergoing competitive selection consistent with the requirements under Article 14 and Article 16 of the Indian Constitution. The petition sought relief for writ of mandamus to the Union of India to appoint the petitioners in their respective cadres. The reliefs cited under Article 32 were as following: “(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to appoint the petitioners in their respective cadres; and  (b) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the facts and circumstances of the case.” In 2018, the court ordered Union of India to take a conscious decision within a specified period and the Union of India terminated the scheme henceafter. Following the decision, this Court disposed a matter in 2019 by observing that since the Scheme stands terminated and is no longer in existence, nothing further need be done in it. The Scheme provided a back door entry to the railways which was fundamentally at odds with Article 16 of the Constitution. In a subsequent order dated 26 March 2019, which was rendered in Writ Petition (C) No 219 of 2019 (Narinder Siraswal v Union of India), a Bench of two Judges permitted the petitioners to approach the authorities with an appropriate representation with a direction to consider it. In view of the above factual background, the court observed that “we are not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32. The grant of reliefs to the petitioners would only enable them to seek a back door entry contrary to the orders of this Court. The Union of India has correctly terminated the Scheme and that decision continues to stand.” The Union government discontinued the scheme with justification. The petitioners can claim neither a vested right nor a legitimate expectation under that scheme, and all the claims based on the scheme must now be closed. With regard to the above facts and circumstances, the court dismissed the petition. Click here to read judgement.
IN THE CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ PetitionNo 721 Manjit and Ors Union of India and Anr JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud J Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioners seek the following reliefs Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to appoint the petitioners in their respective cadres and Issue any other appropriate writ order or direction in the facts and circumstances of the case.” The dispute in the present case relates to a scheme popularly termed as the Larsgess Scheme which had been adopted by the Railway Administration previously. The Punjab and Haryana High Court passed orders on 27 April 2016 and 14 July 2017 requiring the Union of India to reconsider the Scheme. The orders of the High Court were evidently based on the fact that the Scheme provided for an entry into service for certain wards of serving employees without undergoing a competitive selection consistent with the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. On 8 January 2018 in SLPNo 5018 arising from the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 14 July 2017 in RP No 3317 this Court directed the Union of India to take a conscious decision within a period of six weeks . The order dated 8 January 2018 was in the following terms “Heard learned counsel for the parties. Delay condoned. Since the direction in the impugned order is only to re visit the Scheme in question no interference is called for at this stage The petitioner(s) may take a conscious decision in the matter within a period of six weeks from today. If any party is affected by the decision taken such party may take remedy against the same in accordance with law. The special leave petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application(s) including application for intervention shall also stand disposed of.” On 5 March 2019 the Union of India took a decision to terminate the Scheme The decision of the Union of India was noticed in an order dated 6 March 2019 in the following terms In compliance of the directions of the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court dated 27.04.2016 in CWP No.77116 dated 14.07 .2017 in RA CW 330 2017 and Orders of Hon ble Supreme Court dated 08.01.2018 in SLP No 5018 by observing that “since the Scheme stands terminated and is no longer in existence nothing further need be done in In a subsequent order dated 26 March 2019 which was rendered in Writ Petition C) No 2119a Bench of two Judges permitted the petitioners to approach the authorities with an appropriate representation with a direction to consider it The reliefs which have been sought in the present case as already noted earlier are for a writ of mandamus to the Union of India to appoint the petitioners in their respective cadres. A conscious decision has been taken by the Union of India 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 of India had stated that where wards had completed all formalities prior to 27 October 2017to the Chairman of the Railway Board for intimation and compliance. Pending application if any stands disposed of SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).78 2021 MANJIT & ORS. Petitioner(s VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondent(s WITH IA No.8032 2021 EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT Date : 29 01 2021 This petition was called on for hearing today CORAM : HON BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA For Respondent(s) Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary AOR Mr. Shakeel Ahmed Adv Mr. Anupam Bhati Adv Ms. Malvika Raghavan Adv Mr. Nakul Chaudhary Adv Mr. H.S. Mann Adv UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The writ petition is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable judgment. A certified copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Registrarto the Chairman of the Railway Board for intimation and compliance. Pending application if any stands disposed of AR CUM PS COURT MASTER SAROJ KUMARI GAUR Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file