C.W.P. No. 1455 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1455 of 2010 Date of Decision 28.07.2010 Chander -----Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner who was working on the post of Gangman in the Northern Railway has approached this Court claiming that his application for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short “VRS”) has been illegally rejected vide order dated 15.01.2008. He sought direction to the respondents to accept his application for VRS and give employment to his son. The petitioner was appointed as Gangman in the Northern Railway on 08.11.1971. The respondent- Railway had introduced a scheme, namely, Safety Related Retirement Scheme – Drivers and Gangman vide order dated 02.01.2004. The petitioner is stated to have applied in the year 2005 C.W.P. No. 1455 of 2010 -2- under the aforesaid scheme. Had the petitioner succeeded and was granted benefit of VRS then his son could have been given employment in his place for which he had requested. The petitioner claimed that the application filed by him in 2005 was rejected on 15.01.2008 on the ground that he had crossed the upper age limit of 58 years on 30.06.2007. The petitioner claimed that he had applied for VRS under the Scheme well in time and the rejection of his application after crossing the upper age limit on 15.01.2008 cannot be construed to his disadvantage because it was the fault of the respondents who had kept his application pending for three years without any reason. Accordingly the petitioner challenged his rejection order by filing O.A. No. 73-HR-2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity 'the Tribunal'). The order dated 15.01.2008 was set aside and directions were given to respondents to reconsider his claim afresh. The respondents rejected his case once again on 01.05.2009 on another ground, namely, that he is a casual employee. The claim of the petitioner seeking parity with one Shri Ram Kumar has been answered by stating that Shri Ram Kumar is a regular employee whereas the petitioner was a casual and non- screened employee. His services were regularized only few months prior to his retirement. The Tribunal has rejected the claim made by the petitioner by observing as under: “8. From the above, it is clear that the Tribunal had earlier upheld the right of the C.W.P. No. 1455 of 2010 -3- applicant for his request to be considered under the said Scheme despite the fact that he had crossed the age of 57 years, since it was the respondents who had kept his application pending and the application of Shri Ram Kumar had been considered after he had crossed the age of 57 years. The respondents had thereafter considered his request as per the provisions of the Scheme and have passed a well reasoned and detailed speaking order from which it is clear that the request of the applicant has been dis-allowed by the respondents on two grounds, firstly, that he has not completed 33 years of qualifying regular service since he is an un-screened and causal employee and secondly that it is discretionary on the part of the administration to accept or reject the application for voluntary retirement. We feel that the case of the applicant has been duly considered, but since he did not fulfill the eligibility condition under the provisions of the Scheme, he could not be granted any benefit under the Scheme. It has also been stated in the order passed by the respondents that the applicant is not similarly situated as one Shri Ram Kumar, who has been granted this C.W.P. No. 1455 of 2010 -4- benefit, since Shri Ram Kumar was a screened and regular railway employees whereas the applicant is an un-screened and casual employee. We are, therefore, the view that there is no illegality in the order dated 1.5.2009 passed by the respondents.” We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length, Mr. Surinder Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner has insisted that the petitioner was screened in June 1972 by Screening Panel No. 200/347/Screening/ P Way Staff/ JHI/P-6 June, 1972. We had directed the respondent to file an affidavit as to whether the petitioner had been screened in June 1972 and if so then how his case for VRS could be rejected on the ground that he was a casual employee and his services were regularized only some time prior to his retirement. Accordingly, an affidavit has been filed by Shri Harpal Singh, Assistant Divisional Engineer, Northern Railway, Rohtak. In para 4 of the affidavit he states that the assertion of the petitioner is false as has been found on further verification. It has been stated that there is no Screening Panel No. 200/347/Screening/P.Way Staff/ JHI/P-6 June, 1972. The only Screening Panel of June, 1972 is one which bears No. 220 E/ 347/ Screening/ Punjab/Jind/P-6 dated June, 1972, which does not reflect the name of the petitioner. A copy of the list of screened employees bearing Screening Panel No. 220 E/ 347/ Screening/ Punjab/Jind/P-6 dated June, 1972 has been taken on record, which is marked 'A'. C.W.P. No. 1455 of 2010 -5- Accordingly, we are satisfied that the petitioner did not fulfill the necessary conditions for seeking VRS and relief of employment for his son. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal merits acceptance and is deserved to be upheld. Consequently, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE July 28, 2010 Atul