Appointment under LARSGESS cannot be claimed without fulfilling its essential simultaneous-retirement conditions.

The applicant, Bijay Kumar Rao, sought appointment as an Assistant Loco Pilot under the Railways’ Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (LARSGESS), consequent upon the voluntary retirement of his father, Laldeo Prasad, a Loco Pilot.

The father had applied for voluntary retirement and for the applicant’s appointment under the scheme on 27 January 2016.

His request for voluntary retirement was accepted with effect from 5 July 2016, while the applicant’s selection process had not yet been completed.

The applicant contended that although the Railways had required submission of his OBC certificate and had directed that his admit card be issued, he was not permitted to appear in the written examination conducted in July 2016.

The applicant’s father died during the pendency of the Original Application on 12 August 2018.

Whether the applicant acquired an enforceable or vested right to appointment under LARSGESS merely because his father’s voluntary retirement was accepted, when the applicant’s selection process had not been completed simultaneously with the retirement?

Whether the respondents acted illegally or arbitrarily by not permitting the applicant to appear in the written examination, particularly when the requisite OBC certificate had not been submitted within the prescribed time?

Whether appointment could be directed under LARSGESS after the scheme had been terminated with effect from 27 October 2017?

The Tribunal applied the governing conditions of the LARSGESS, under which voluntary retirement of the eligible railway employee and appointment of the nominated ward were required to occur simultaneously; an application or acceptance of voluntary retirement alone did not create an unconditional right to appointment.

The Tribunal also applied the requirement that candidature be assessed with reference to the prescribed eligibility date and that necessary documents, including the applicable caste certificate, be submitted within the stipulated period.

It considered the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision dated 27 April 2016 in CWP No. 7714 of 2016 and the Supreme Court’s order dated 8 January 2018 in SLP (C) No. 508 of 2018, following which the Ministry of Railways terminated LARSGESS with effect from 27 October 2017 and directed that no further appointments be made, subject to limited pending cases.

The Tribunal distinguished the decisions in Raisuddin v. Union of India and O.A. No. 3971/2012 as cases arising from different factual circumstances and not establishing an unconditional right to appointment under LARSGESS.

The Tribunal held that the essential condition of simultaneous retirement and appointment was not satisfied.

Although the father’s voluntary retirement took effect on 5 July 2016, the applicant had neither completed the selection process nor secured appointment by that date.

Consequently, the father’s retirement did not confer a vested right upon the applicant.

The Tribunal further accepted the respondents’ explanation that the applicant’s candidature was to be assessed on the basis of eligibility as on 1 January 2016 and that the OBC certificate was not furnished within the prescribed period; therefore, the applicant could not claim an unconditional entitlement to participate in the selection or receive appointment.

The subsequent termination of LARSGESS also barred the grant of appointment under a scheme that was no longer in existence.

The Tribunal found that the precedents cited by the applicant did not apply to the materially different facts and that no illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural infirmity warranting interference had been established.

It held that no vested or enforceable right to appointment under LARSGESS arose because the applicant’s selection and appointment were not completed simultaneously with his father’s retirement, and because the relevant documentary requirements had not been fulfilled within time.

In view of the subsequent termination of LARSGESS and the absence of established illegality or arbitrariness, the Original Application was dismissed.

Any pending Miscellaneous Application was also disposed of, with no order as to costs.