(Uday Umesh Lalit and Indu Malhotra, JJ.)
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 219/2019
Narinder Siraswal and Others _____________________ Petitioner(s);
v.
Union of India and Another _____________________ Respondent(s).
(IA No. 13975/2019 – For exemption from filing Official Translation)
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 219/2019 and IA No. 13975/2019, decided on March 26, 2019
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. In SLP (Civil) No. 508 of 2018 arising from judgment and order dated 14.07.2017 rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Kala Singh v. Union of India, the question for consideration was – whether the LARSGESS Scheme under which the dependents of those who were working in Railways could be accommodated in service was valid or not?
2. The matter thereafter engaged attention of this Court and finally a decision was taken by Union of India on 05.03.2019 to terminate the LARSGESS Scheme. These developments were noted in the order dated 06.03.2019 and the pending petition i.e. MA No. 346/2019 in M.A. No. 1202/2018 in SLP (Civil) No. 508/2018 was disposed of. The order noted as under:
“The petitioner has since then taken a decision on 5th March, 2019 to terminate the LARSGESS Scheme and the decision so taken is as under:—
“In compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 27.04.2016 in Kala Singh v. Union of India, dated 14.07.2017 in Kala Singh v. Union of India, and Orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 08.01.2018 in Kala Singh v. Union of India, Ministry of Railways have revisited the LARSGESS Scheme duly obtaining legal opinion and consulted Ministry of Law & 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, no further appointments should be made under the Scheme subject to position mentioned in para 2 below.
2. As regards the cases where the wards had completed all formalities including Medical Examination under LARSGESS Scheme prior to 27.10.2017 and were found fit, but the employees are yet to retire, the matter is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and further instructions would be issued as per directions of the Hon’ble Court.”
Since the Scheme stands terminated and is no longer in existence, nothing further need be done in the matter.
Application(s) is/are accordingly, disposed of.”
3. The present writ petition prays inter alia for the following reliefs:
“Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to appoint the petitioners in their respective cadres.”
4. Since the petitioners are claiming benefit under the Scheme which was prevalent when applications were preferred by the petitioners, we give liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned authorities with appropriate representation. If such representation is made, the authorities will do well to consider the matter within two weeks on preferring of the representation.
5. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
