HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15021 of 2025 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 01.07.2025 passed in Original Application ('OA') No. 605 of 2016 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, whereby the OA filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The petition was filed seeking directions to the respondents to accord appointment to the petitioner under the Liberalised Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employee for Safety Staff (LARSGESS). Submissions were made that the respondents were not justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner as he has appeared in the second aptitude test held on 31.12.2015 and 01.01.2016 as the result was not declared. 3. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1407 of 2019 (Abhishek Kumar Jha and others Vs. Union of India and another) and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 78 of 2021 (Manjit Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others), came to the conclusion that once the Scheme itself was withdrawn, no benefit whatsoever including one of consideration of representation could be afforded to any of the persons and based on the said judgment, dismissed the OA. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Damodar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Pranay Krishna Amar Deep Yadav .....Petitioner(s) Union of India and 3 others .....Respondent(s) 4. Counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions that as the case of the petitioner was considered, prior to the Scheme was closed, the judgments have no application. 5. Counsel for the respondent, with reference to the judgment relied on by the Tribunal, submitted that the law laid down in this regard is clear and specific that once the Scheme has been closed, no consideration was required to be made and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the OA. 6. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record. 7. The determination made by Hon'ble Supreme court is clear and specific, wherein in the case of Manjit Singh (supra), the Supreme Court, inter alia, laid down and observed as under : " 6. The reliefs which have been sought in the present case, as already noted earlier, are for a writ of mandamus to the Union of India to appoint the petitioners in their respective cadres. A conscious decision has been taken by the Union of India to terminate the Scheme. This has been noticed in the order of this Court dated 6 March 2019, which has been extracted above. While taking this decision on 5 March 2019, the Union of India had stated that where wards had completed all formalities prior to 27 October 2017 (the date of termination of the Scheme) and were found fit, since the matter was pending consideration before this Court, further instructions would be issued in accordance with the directions of this Court. Noticing the above decision, this Court, in its order dated 6 March 2019, specifically observed that since the Scheme stands terminated and is no longer In existence, nothing further need be done in the matter. The Scheme provided for an avenue of a back door entry into the service of the railways. This would be fundamentally at odds with Article 16 of the Constitution. The Union government has with justification discontinued the scheme. The petitioners can claim neither a vested right nor a legitimate expectation under such a Scheme. All claims based on the Scheme must now be closed." 8. In view of the determination made by Hon'ble Supreme Court, no case WRIA No. 15021 of 2025 2 for interference is made out in the petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. October 14, 2025 Jyotsana/Mukesh Pal WRIA No. 15021 of 2025 3 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad