IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.11981 of 2000 Between: Unior of India, Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and another ..... PETITIONERS AND Y.Sulamaiah and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.11981 of 2000 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V.Afzulpurkar) The Union of India and Railways have questioned the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) dated 25.11.1998 in O.A.285/1998. The said O.A.was filed by the 1st respondent herein for a direction to the respondents therein to appoint his son as a casual labour, in terms of the Circular of the General Manager of Railways. The allegation of the 1st respondent/applicant was that while he was working as Engine Fitter he applied for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “VRS”) and as per the aforesaid scheme of the General Manager, extending benefit of engaging wards of such employees as casual labours, the 1st respondent/applicant claimed that his son is entitled to be considered for such service. The said claim, however, was rejected by the Railways on the ground that the Scheme is applicable to such of the employees who have two years left over service as on the cut off date i.e. 28.10.1993 and since the 1st respondent/applicant has less than 2 years left over service, his claim cannot be considered. Questioning the same, the O.A.285/1998 was filed. On considering the rival contentions in detail, the Tribunal found that the applicant has not made concrete case for allowing the O.A. as he does not fall under the parameters of the Scheme, however, the Tribunal gave two directions, viz., (1) that the Railway Board immediately should issue detailed guidelines for engagement of casual labour/substitutes under the discretionary powers of the General Manager, and till such time the guidelines are issued, the discretionary powers of the General Manager were stayed; and (2) that the son of the applicant should be kept on record for engagement as casual labour/substitute in BTTR area following the extant Rules, if need arises in future and the discretionary powers of the General Manager can be used in those circumstances. The Railways have questioned the aforesaid order primarily on the ground that the Scheme framed by the General Manager is within his discretionary power and though the case of the 1st respondent/applicant did not fall within the said Scheme, and while denying the substantive relief claimed, the Tribunal erroneously stayed the Scheme itself under Direction No.1, as above, and a further directive that the son of the 1st respondent/applicant should be engaged when need arises, and thus, the O.A.stands allowed. Sri Gouri Shankar Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to our notice the order of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Vijayawada under Order No.B/P.677/III/C&W/Re-deploy dated 27.07.1994 containing the Office Order No.Mech/C&W/60/94. Under the aforesaid order the 1st respondent/applicant who was to retire on VRS has volunteered to come over to Mechanical (C&W) Department and was absorbed as C&W Skilled Fitter Grade-III and posted to work against higher grade vacancy. The aforesaid order is relied upon to show that the 1st respondent/applicant in fact did not retire on VRS and was in fact redeployed. The learned counsel also submits that the very Scheme of the General Manager was applicable to such of the employees who are retiring on VRS, and in view of the fact that 1st respondent/applicant was redeployed, he did not fall within the said Scheme. Consequently, therefore, rejection of his case by the Railways was justified. We have considered the aforesaid contentions. Even according to the averments of the 1st respondent/applicant in the O.A., the Scheme was primarily made for such employees who are retiring by taking voluntary retirement. Since the 1st respondent/applicant was admittedly redeployed and worked in higher grade, he is not entitled to the benefit of the said Scheme. For the directions given by the Tribunal, as above, we are of the view that when applicant was not entitled to the benefit of Scheme, there was no reason or occasion to issue such directions. The O.A. therefore ought to have been dismissed. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed and the O.A. shall stand dismissed. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ___________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J Dated: 07.09.2009 Dsr