THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS versus A NISHANTH GEORGE

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 289 · Decided: 25-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
289
THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER & ORS.
v.
A NISHANTH GEORGE
(Civil Appeal No. 294 of 2022)
JANUARY 25, 2022
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
A S BOPANNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Appointment scheme – Railway Board under
Union Railways Ministry introduced a scheme known as the Safety
Related Retirement Scheme for the categories of Gangmen and
Drivers – Drivers and Gangmen could seek voluntary retirement –
When the application for retirement is accepted, employment would
be considered for a ‘suitable ward’ of the employee, subject to
suitability – Scheme later modified to Liberalized Active Retirement
Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (“LARSGESS
Scheme”) – Safety staff in the age group of 50-57 years could now
seek voluntary retirement – By notification dated 28 September 2018,
Railway Board decide to terminate the LARSGESS scheme with the
direction that no further appointments should be made under the
Scheme except in cases of “staff who have already retired under
LARSGESS scheme before 27.10.2017 (but not naturally
superannuated) and appointment of whole wards was not made due
to various formalities, appointment of such of the wards/candidates
can be made with the approval of the competent authority” – A two
judge bench of Supreme Court held that since the Scheme stood
terminated and was no longer in existence, nothing further needed
be done in the matter – In a subsequent case, a three-judge bench
of the Supreme Court held that the Union of India had correctly
terminated the scheme; no person could claim a vested right or
legitimate expectation under the scheme; and that all claims based
on the Scheme must now be closed – In the instant case, appeals
filed against the decisions of High Court whereby the benefit of the
Scheme was extended to the respondents’ fathers on the ground
that they had retired before the cut off date of 27.10.2017 – Held:
It needed determination if the claims of the respondents were covered
by the exception clause in the notification issued on 28 September
2018 – The 28 September 2018 notification clearly envisaged that
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 289
289
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
290
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
in spite of the termination of the LARSGESS scheme, appointments
under the scheme could only be made if (i) the staff had voluntarily
retired (and not naturally superannuated) under the scheme before
27 October 2017; and (ii) appointment of the ward was not made
because of ‘formalities’ which remained – The exception does not
cover all pending claims – The benefit of the LARSGESS Scheme
could not be extended where an employee had attained the age of
superannuation in the normal course before 27 October 2017 –
The respondents’ fathers superannuated on 31 May 2016 and on
31 December 2014 respectively – The respondents cannot claim
any vested right under the scheme – Discretion to accept the request
for retirement will vest with the administration depending on the
suitability of the wards for appointment in the same category as the
employee – Therefore, the respondents cannot be brought within
the purview of the exception merely because the claim was made
before 27 October 2017 – Furthermore, individual cases of the
respondents’ do not hold any merit.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The notification envisages that in spite of the
termination of the LARSGESS scheme, appointments under the
scheme could only be made if (i) the staff had voluntarily retired
(and not naturally superannuated) under the scheme before 27
October 2017; and (ii) appointment of the ward was not made
because of ‘formalities’ which remained. The exception does not
cover all pending claims. Clause (x) of notification which was
issued on 2 January 2004 states that discretion to accept the
request for retirement will vest with the administration
depending on the suitability of the wards for appointment in the
same category as the employee. Therefore, the respondents
cannot be brought within the purview of the exception merely
because the claim was made before 27 October 2017. [Paras 19,
20][303-C; 304-B-C]
2.1. In one civil appeal, respondent’s father was a Trackman.
For the respondent to have been appointed under the scheme,
he must have fulfilled the criteria for the appointment to the
category in which his father was serving. Therefore, in terms of
the scheme, though the respondent fulfilled the medical criteria
requirement for some other posts, he could not be considered
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
291

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.