case laws

Nishanth George And General Manager Case

Nishanth George And General Manager Case

Nishanth George And General Manager Case

The chief personnel officer and org. V.A Nishanth George and The General manager Vs. P. Balamurugan, 2022. Liberalized active retirement scheme for guaranteed employment for safety staff. Large Scheme – The railway board on January 2, 2004, introduced a scheme referred to as the Safety Related Retirement Scheme for the categories of Gangmen and drivers since the working of on train operations and track maintenance. The Railway Board also reiterated that the retirement of an employee would be considered only if a ward is found suitable in all aspects, It was also envisaged that an employee’s retirement and the appointment of the ward should take place simultaneously.

Railways on September 26, 2018, notified its decision to terminate the scheme and said that no further appointment should be made under the Scheme except in cases where employees have already retired under the LARSGESS Scheme before October 27, 2017. It was also notified that irrespective of their wards completing the entire process and being medically fit, their wards could not be appointed dir to the Scheme having been put on hold.

Chief personnel Officer and  Org. V. A Nishanth George –

The respondent’s father who was working as a Senior Trolley man in southern railways opted for voluntary retirement under the LARSGESS scheme on September 29, 2011, and sought the respondent’s appointment. Although the respondent qualified for the written examination, he was found medically unfit for the appointment to the post of Trackman under the scheme since he was not fit. While disposing of the case on April 1, 2016, the Tribunal directed the Railway to consider his case for appointment to any post of CEE  ONE and below.

The General Manager Vs. P. Balamurugan –

Respondent’s father who was a Senior Trackman in Southern Railway had submitted an application for voluntary retirement under the  LARSGESS Scheme on December 2, 2010.  Under submitting two applications for retirement, the respondent’s father retired on December 31, 2014. In 2017, the respondent filed an OA seeking the issuance of direction to employ the LARSGESS scheme which was dismissed on December 11, 2017.

The Judgement –

On 28 September 2018, Railways notified another notification which said that despite the termination of the LARSGESS scheme, appointments under the scheme could only be made if the staff had voluntarily retired under the scheme before 27 October 2-17 and appointment of the ward was not made because of ‘formalities’  which remained. The bench also referred to the Top Court’s judgment in Manjit V.  Union of India LL  2021 SC 57 wherein the three-judge bench while declining to entertain a petition seeking a mandamus directing the Union of India and the railways to appoint the petitioners in terms of the LARSGESS scheme had observed.

The Judgement – 

The respondent’s father superannuated on 31 May 2016 and on 31 December 2014. The contention of the respondents that since the claims were pending adjudication before various fora, the delay cannot be attributed to them is erroneous. This court in Manjit held that pending claims under the scheme must be closed. Their respondents cannot claim any vested right under the scheme. In Nishanth George’s case, the respondent was found to be medically unfit for the post of trackman under the LARSGESS scheme.

Click to comment

Most Popular

To Top