ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant/respondent herein sought premature retirement at the age of 54 years, after completing 33 years, 9 months and 28 days. He had climbed the ladder upto the post of Assistant Loco Pilot from his initial appointment in Class IV as Shed Khalasi/Gangman. He approached the learned Tribubnal in O.A. No.3 of 2013 (R) for a direction upon the respondents-railway to consider the case of his son under Safety Related Retirement Scheme- Drivers and Gangman (SRRS) for employment, consequent upon the acceptance of his VRS. The learned Tribunal took into account the case of the parties and held at Para 7 of the impugned order dated 8th September, 2015 that the applicant had submitted his application for VRS and his son’s appointment simultaneously. He had also retired five years before his normal superannuation. Therefore, his application was indeed under SRRS. The contention of the railways that he had tendered voluntary retirement because of his inability to perform the duty as passenger driver vide application on 1st March, 2010/ 20th April, 2010 was not under SRRS but a voluntary retirement due to ill health was rejected by the learned Tribunal. 3. We do not find any reason to disturb the finding of learned Tribunal on that score for the underlying reason that the applicant’s retirement was accepted on the ground of ill health, which is covered under the SRRS framed on the consideration that with advancing age, the physical fitness and reflexes of staff of these categories deteriorate, thereby causing a safety hazards. 4. Learned Tribunal however also proceeded to brush aside the objection of the railways on the eligibility condition of ITI, mandatory for appointment to a post which is in the lowest recruitment grade of respective category from which the employee seeks retirement as per sub-clause (vi) of SRRS. Both the applicant and the railways are relying upon the same SRRS on the question of consideration of claim of the applicant’s son. SRRS is enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition and Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of the respondent filed on 5th April, 2018. 5. Learned Tribunal thereafter proceeded to direct the respondent-railways to consider the case of the employment of applicant’s son under SRRS within a period of four months from the date of passing of the order. 6. SRRS is enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition and Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of the respondent filed on 5th April, 2018. 5. Learned Tribunal thereafter proceeded to direct the respondent-railways to consider the case of the employment of applicant’s son under SRRS within a period of four months from the date of passing of the order. 6. The real bone of contention, borne out from the pleadings and the submissions of the parties, is on the issue as to which is the lowest recruitment grade of the category from which the applicant retired and whether the eligibility criteria of ITI would apply for consideration of claim for appointment under SRRS to the dependent of such an employee. Sub-clause (vi) of Annexure-1 dated 13th January, 2004 is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “The ward will be considered for appointment only in the lowest recruitment grade of the respective category from which the employee seeks retirement, depending upon his/her eligibility and suitability, but not in any other category.” 7. Sub-clause (xii) of SRRS also indicates the conditions of eligibility in the case of wards being considered for appointment and provides that it would be the same as prescribed for direct recruitment from open market. 8. The main features of the scheme SRRS shows that it covers two safety categories viz. Drivers (excluding shunters) and Gangmen whose working has a critical bearing on safety of train operations and track maintenance. At the time of retirement, the applicant was undisputedly in the category of Drivers. However, the applicant claims that he rose from the category of Shed Khalasi/Gangman which as per SRRS is categorized as other category. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a notification dated 3rd July, 2017 annexed as Annexure-G to the reply to the rejoinder filed on 15th May, 2018 which is on the subject of Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (LARSGESS)- 2nd Cycle 2017 July 2017 to Dec. 2017 – GTL Division. It does not indicate that it relates to a claim for appointment under SRRS, Annexure-1 notified on 13th January, 2004. As such, not much mileage can be drawn from the categorization described under Annexure-G to the reply to the rejoinder. 10. 2017 – GTL Division. It does not indicate that it relates to a claim for appointment under SRRS, Annexure-1 notified on 13th January, 2004. As such, not much mileage can be drawn from the categorization described under Annexure-G to the reply to the rejoinder. 10. Learned senior counsel for the respondents has in this factual backdrop relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Food Corporation of India & Anr. Versus Ram Kesh Yadav & Anr. reported in (2007) 9 SCC 531 in support of her submission. 11. Upon consideration of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and the relevant materials on record as noted above, we are of the considered opinion that learned Tribunal while remanding the case for consideration of the claim of the son under SRRS should not have offered definite opinion that requirement of ITI is not a necessary eligibility criteria for such appointment. The decision making authority should be free to consider the claim in an objective manner based on the relevant records and the applicable scheme i.e., whether the post of Shed Khalasi/Gangman as claimed by the applicant was the post in the lowest recruitment grade of the category i.e. Driver from which the applicant retired and; whether in terms of clause (xii), ITI or any other eligibility condition applied to such appointment as is prescribed for direct recruitment from the open market also. 12. In this light, we modify the impugned order to the extent that while considering the case of the son of the applicant under SRRS, the writ petitioner-railways shall not be influenced by the observation made by the learned Tribunal upon the eligibility criteria applicable to the said post. It shall also be open for the Railways to decide on the question as to which is the lowest recruitment grade of the category from the employee has retired. The consideration be made in accordance with law within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 13. With this modification, this writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.