Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
G.Sundararajan vs Union Of India on 16 December, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/162 of 2015
Wednesday, this the 16th day of December, 2015
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. U.Sarathchandran, Judicial Member
G.Sundararajan
S/o.Gnana Sigamani
(Retd. Trackman/Southern Railway/
Office of the Senior Section Engineer/
Permanent Way/Nagercoil Junction)
Residing at: Pandara Vilai
Kaviyaloor, Kattathurai P.O
Kanyakumari District, Pin 629 158 . . . . . Applicant
(By Advocate Mr.T.C.G Swamy)
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by
The General Manager, Southern Railway
Headquarters Office, Park Town P.O
Chennai 600 003
2. The Divisional Railway Manager
Southern Railway
Trivandrum Division
Trivandrum 695 014
3. The Divisional Personnel Officer
Southern Railway
Trivandrum Division
Trivandrum 695 014 . . . . . Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.K.M.Anthru)
This Original Application having been heard on 02.12.2015, the
Tribunal on 16.12.2015 day delivered the following:
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr.U.Sarathchandran, Judicial Member Applicant was working as a Trackman in the Trivandrum Division of the respondent Railways has come before this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:-
' (i) Declare that the refusal on the part of the respondents to grant the applicant the benefit of absorption on par with his juniors in the list of retrenched casual labourers at least with effect from 03.11.2003 is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to law and hence, unconstitutional;
(ii) Direct the respondents to grant the applicant the benefit of absorption as Trackman from the date of such absorption of persons with lesser number of days of service than that of the applicant (at least with effect from 03.11.2003) and direct further to grant all consequential benefits arising there from including arrears of pay and allowances, leave due etc;
(iii) Declare that the non-feasance on the part of the respondents to certify the applicant unfit for all duties with effect from 12.11.2014 is arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional';
(iv) Direct the respondents to consider and deem the applicant to have been charged against a supernumerary post of Trackman with effect from 13.11.2014 and direct further to grant all the consequential benefits thereof, including consideration for an appointment to the applicants daughter on compassio0nate grounds.'
2. Since he seeks plural reliefs, which is against Rule 10 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 that forbades multiple reliefs, Mrs.Kala Gopi, Advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant is confining the relief of granting him the benefit of absorption as a Trackman from the date of absorption of persons with lesser number of days of service than him (at least with effect from 03.11.2003) and to grant him all consequential benefits arising there from including the arrears of pay and allowances, leave due etc. She further submitted that while confining to the aforesaid relief, the applicant may be given the liberty to approach the Tribunal regarding the other reliefs relating to his medical unfitness.
3. According to the applicant, he was a retrenched casual labour in the Southern Railway Construction Organisation. He had 656 days of casual service within the territorial jurisdiction of the Trivandrum Division. He was retrenched after 01.01.1981. In 2003, the applicant who was borne in the list of retrenched casual labours of Southern Railway of Trivandrum Division, was directed to appear before the Divisional authorities with all relevant documents as per Annexure A-1 letter which contains a list of such retrenched casual labours where his name can be seen at serial no.208. As the respondents denied granting the applicant and some others on the ground that they had crossed 43 years of age, they approached this Tribunal with O.A No.271/06 which was disposed of by a common order dated 14.03.2007. The said order was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court vide Annexure A-2 order. Subsequently, the applicant was subjected to a medical examination and was regularly appointed as Trackman with effect from 06.08.2008. According to the applicant the delay in considering and granting such appointment to the applicant was for reasons attributable to the respondents. He further states that in the case of one Shri.Viswanathan who was also appointed like the applicant in 2007, the benefit of absorption was given with retrospective effect from 1996, the date of absorption of his junior. In a series of Original Applications came to be filed before this Tribunal, the respondents took the contention that Shri.Viswanathan was wrongly given the date of regularisation as 1996 and that his correct date of absorption could only be 03.11.2003. It was also stated that Shri.Viswanathan had only 601 days of service as on the date of his retrenchment. Hence the aforesaid O.As were allowed declaring that applicants therein must be deemed to have been regularised with effect from 03.1.2003. One such order of this Tribunal in O.A 1032/11 dated 31.7.2012 is marked as Annexure A-3. The applicant sought the benefit of Annexure A-3 order and other similar orders for the purpose of retrospective effect of regularisation from 03.11.2003 but no benefit was given. Subsequently, he fell ill resulting in his unfitness to perform the duties. Respondents without granting any legal remedies allowed the applicant to continue in service till his retirement. Thereby his daughter lost the benefit of getting the appointment on compassionate grounds for medically de-categorised persons.
4. Shri.K.M.Anthru, learned counsel for respondents opposed applicant's case on the ground of a plurality of the reliefs sought. According to him the applicant never approached for any benefits due to him on becoming medically unfit. Regarding his prayer for granting retrospective effect of his date of absorption from 03.11.2003 Shri.K.M.Anthru submitted that the relief granted in different Original Applications based on the date of absorption of Shri.K.Viswanathan is per incurium and the mistake on the part of Railways was to have relied upon the list of 1996 instead of the merged seniority list and hence the benefits bestowed on Mr.K.Viswanathan are unintended benefits. However, to a pointed query by this Tribunal as to whether Annexure A-3 order of this Tribunal has become final and whether the applicant is similarly situated to the applicants in Annexure A-3 order Shri.K.M.Anthru answered in affirmative. Mrs.Kala, learned counsel for applicant pointed out that applicant no.2 in Annexure A-3 order of this Tribunal is also a retrenched casual labour appearing in |Annexure A-1 list at serial no.259, much junior to the applicant who is at serial no.208 in that list.
5. Therefore, it becomes, imperative to hold that the applicant is situated similar to the applicants in O.A No.1032/2011 in which relief was granted to them vide Annexure A-3 order of this Tribunal granting notional fixation of pay and annual increments with effect from 03.11.2003 for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits only.
6. Since it appears that the applicant's case relating to his regularisation as a retrenched casual labour squarely comes within the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid O.A, the benefits of Annexure A-3 order should be given to the applicant also. In the result, the Original Application is allowed in part directing the respondents to treat the regularisation of the applicant retrospectively with effect from 03.11.2003 and to grant him notional fixation of pay with annual increments with effect from 03.11.2003 for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits only. Applicant is given the liberty to approach the appropriate forum regarding his grievances of non- consideration for availing the benefits of medical de-categorisation and other subsequent benefits flowing therefrom, if so advised.
7. The Original Application is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. Parties shall suffer their costs.
(U.SARATHCHANDRAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER sv