ORDER : 1. Petitioner has approached this Court against the judgement of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 23.3.2018. The Tribunal by the aforesaid judgement has decided the bunch of the O.As. The dispute pertains to appointment under the Liberalised Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (LARSGESS) by the railways in terms of policy of the Railways. The aforesaid policy was declared violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and it was held that the scheme is a device evolved by the Railways to make backdoor entries in public employment, which brazenly militates against equality in public employment. 2. The Railways approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP No.4482/2017, which was dismissed on 6.3.2017. While dismissing the said SLP, the Supreme Court observed that the Railways are not debarred from moving the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for ventilating their grievances as they were not heard while passing the order dated 27.4.2016. The Railways then filed review petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which too was dismissed on 14.7.2017. After dismissal of the review petition, the Railways issued a Circular on 27.10.2017 directing to keep the LARSGESS on hold till further orders. The Railways then also filed Special Leave Petition No.87470/2017 against the judgement dismissing the review petition. This SLP was also dismissed on 8.1.2018. While dismissing the SLP, the Supreme Court issued directions to the Railways to take a conscious decision in the matter within a period of six weeks. It was observed that if any party is affected by the decision taken, such party may take remedy in accordance with law. 3. The stand of the respondents before the Tribunal was that so far no decision pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court dated 8.1.2018 has been taken by the Railways and that the respondents were still in the process of taking decision as per the order of the Supreme Court. It is in these facts that the Tribunal disposed of the OA with the observation that after re-visitation of LARSGESS by the Railways in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court, if any party feels aggrieved, the matter can be re-agitated in accordance with law before the competent forum having jurisdiction over the matter. 4. It is in these facts that the Tribunal disposed of the OA with the observation that after re-visitation of LARSGESS by the Railways in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court, if any party feels aggrieved, the matter can be re-agitated in accordance with law before the competent forum having jurisdiction over the matter. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent-Railways has decided to offer appointment to the petitioner, but on account of FIR registered against him by his wife under Section 498A Cr.P.C., his appointment was withheld. It is however not in dispute that the appointment that was being offered to the petitioner was also under the LARSGESS. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Railway Board has in fact revisited the policy and issued a fresh circular of LARSGESS Scheme bearing No.E(P&A) I-2015/RT-43 dated 26.09.2018 in the following terms :- “In compliance with the above directions, Ministry of Railways have revisited the scheme duly obtaining legal opinion and consulted Ministry of Law & Justice. Accordingly, it has been decided to terminate the LARSGESS Scheme w.e.f. 27.10.2017 i.e. the date from which it was put on hold. No further appointments should be made under the Scheme except in case where employees have already retired under the LARSGESS Scheme before 27.10.2017 (but not normally superannuated) and their wards could not be appointed due to the Scheme having been put on hold in terms of Board’s letter dated 27.10.2017 though they had successfully completed the entire process and were found medically fit. All such appointments should be made with the approval of the competent authority.” 6. In view of the above, we dispose of the petition requiring the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondents, which the respondents, shall decide within a period of six weeks. If the petitioner is not granted appointment pursuant to the aforesaid policy, it would be open to him to again approach the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing a fresh Original Application. 7. With that liberty and observation, the present petition is dismissed.