Administrative instructions fixing cut-off dates cannot retrospectively disqualify LARSGESS applications validly submitted under prevailing guidelines.

Applicant No. 1, a Gateman in the Engineering Department of Eastern Railway, applied for voluntary retirement under the Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (LARSGESS) on 22.01.2011, seeking appointment for his son, Applicant No. 2.

Applicant No. 1 subsequently retired on superannuation on 30.06.2014.

On 18.06.2015, the respondents rejected the application, citing that the applicant was "overage".

The respondents contended that per a Sealdah Division circular dated 01.06.2011, the cut-off date for eligibility was 01.07.2011, on which date the applicant had exceeded the 57-year age limit by 27 days.

The applicants challenged this rejection, arguing the application was valid when submitted under the then-prevailing Railway Board instructions.

1. Whether the respondents were justified in retrospectively applying a cut-off date of 01.07.2011 to an application submitted on 22.01.2011 under the LARSGESS scheme.

2. Whether the impugned order dated 18.06.2015 was a reasoned and speaking order in compliance with principles of natural justice.

Railway Board letters dated 11.09.2010 and 24.09.2010, which extended LARSGESS benefits to Gangmen/Trackmen in the age group of 50–57 years with 20 years of qualifying service.

Executive instructions are ordinarily prospective in operation unless expressly stated otherwise.

Authorities must pass reasoned and speaking orders when deciding service claims.

The Tribunal found that the Railway Board instructions of September 2010, which governed the scheme at the time of the applicant’s submission in January 2011, did not stipulate a 01.07.2011 cut-off date.

The court reasoned that the Sealdah Division circular dated 01.06.2011 appeared to regulate the "second half of 2011" cycle and could not automatically nullify applications already pending under the prior framework without express retrospective intent.

The respondents failed to produce any Railway Board policy mandating that applications from early 2011 must be tested against the later July 2011 cut-off.

The Tribunal noted that the impugned rejection was "cryptic" and failed to explain why the subsequent circular superseded the rules in force on the date of application.

The matter required fresh examination on the correct legal premise, emphasizing that claims should be assessed based on instructions prevailing on the date of application.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicants' claim by issuing a reasoned and speaking order within twelve weeks, specifically evaluating whether the 01.06.2011 circular was intended to operate retrospectively against pending applications.

The O.A. was disposed of with no order as to costs.