Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata

Joy Hind Prasad vs Eastern Railway on 13 December, 2018

IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CALCUTTA BENCH, CALCUTTA O. A. No.350/00/1 Oi y of 2015 ;

In the matter of :

1. JOY HIND PRASAD, son of Late Harkaran Prasad, aged about 52 years, residing at 34/35, Bijoy Kumar Mukherjee Road, P.0. Salkia, P.S. Golabari, Howrah, Piri-711006.

2. TIRATH PRASAD, son of Late Muneshwar Prasad, aged about 55 years, residing at 49, Bijay Kumar Mukherjee Road, P.0. Salkia, P.S. Golabari, Howrah, Pin-711106. <

3. ANIL SAHA, son of Late Akhil * Saha, aged about 54 years, residing 1 at Village Gobra, P.O. Chanditalla, r P.S. Dankuni, District : Hooghly, l Pin-712702.

4. ASHOK NASKAR, son of Upen Naskar, aged about years, residing ) at Village Naskar Para Ula, P.O. Ula, i .i.

I P.S. Sahkrail, Howrah, Pin-711310. r Ir i 2 ! 5. SUBHAS SHAW, son of Suraj i Shaw, aged about 38 years, residing at 50/ly G.T. Road, Pilkhana, P.,0. 3' f.

Howrah, P.S. Golabari, Howrah, Pin- 711101.

6. BECHA RAM MAN, son Of Late Jivan Krishna Man, aged about 52 years, residing at Village Kalirampur, P.S. & P.O. Baruipur, District Hooghly, Pin- 712205.

7. HIRA LAL RAM, son of Kowleswar Ram, aged about years, ; residing /at 103, Foreshore Road, • i i Bichali Ghat, P.S. & P.O. Shibpur, ;

i Howrah, Pin-711102.

8. BIJLI YADAV, son of Chalaku \ Yadav, aged about 41 years, residing at 61/4, F. Road, No.2 Kunja Para, s E P.O. Netaji Garh, P.S. Liluah, Howrah, Pin-711108.

All the applicants worked as Parcel I Porter at Howrah Railway Station ■ under Chief Parcel Luggage i Inspector, Eastern Railway, Howrah.

... APPLICANTS If:

■r1.* fJ.
tir":-.
s.
3
% \ {■ \-
                                              VERSUS
It: '                                                                                      i'ij
                                                                                           %

                                1.   UNION       OF      INDIA,     service
■|:




l                               through    the     General        Manager,
 r
                                Eastern Railway,         17,   N.S. Road,
 £
 fr-.
 if
Fairly Place, Kolkata-700 001.
?■
2. THE CHAIRMAN, Railway Board, Rail Bhaban, New Delhi, Pin-

110001.

) 3. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, Eastern Railway, 17, N.S. Road, Fairly Place, Kolkata-700001.

4. THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER, Eastern Railway, 103 .V Kalighat Street, Kolkata-700001.

5. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, Eastern Railway Howrah Division, Howrah, Pin-

711101.

%■

6. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL tr.

■V;;

COMMERCIAL MANAGER, Eastern |vv Railway, Howrah Division, Howrah, 'M Pin-711101.

4

i t

7. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL MANAGER, Eastern /Railway, Howrah Division, Howrah, Pin-711 ID 1.

8. THE ASSISTANT PERSONNEL OFFICER (2) Eastern Railway, Howrah Division, Howrah, Pin-

711101.

... RESPONDENTS ;

1

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH O.A/350/1017/2015 Date of Order: VA-1 ■ Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member Hon'ble Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member Joy Hind Prasad & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.

For the Applicant(s): Mr. B.Chatterjee, Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. M.K.Bandyopadhyay, Counsel / L. Bidisha Banerjee. Member-(•?): *- \ i

--•* I Li . , In a sequel to an earlier 0%.^ beihg^O.A.NoT 671/2013 disposed of on v ;

14.11.2014, this O.A. ha^^env^prefer^ ■'tp'^^allenge the memo dated 12.01.2014 issued by Sr. DivisionaUComnfercial Manager, Eastern Railway, Howrah in purported compliance of the directions of this Tribunal in O.A.No. 671/ 2013.

2. We heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the materials on record.

3. O.A. 671/2013 was disposed of with the following orders:

Heard Ld. Counsel for both sides.
/ 2
2. The Ld. Counsel for the respondents fairly concedes that the applicants who have been found unfit in Cl category and have not been absorbed as Parcel Porters, can be considered against alternative posts and adjusted against other avenues in view of the fact that similarly circumstanced Parcel Porters have been adjusted as Bedding Porters etc. in the Railways in consideration of their prayer for absorption where medical fitness lesser than Cl category is required.
3. In such view of the matter, the O.A. is disposed of with a direction upon the concerned respondent authority to consider the case of the applicants against available vacancies of Porters, in other categories commensurate with their medical fitness less than Cl category which shall make them eligible to be considered in accordance with law and pass appropriate-order within three months from the date of receijD^fia this order.

4/ ^The<(3SSs^accor5dingly, disposed of. No order as to cost's." •r'vV' * ^ \ It appears since the Respondents Counsel appearing in the said^iatte^adlfaifl^dpriceded that the applicants of the said O.A., Joyhind Prasad & "dthersT'who have been found unfit in C-I category and were not absorbed as Parcel Porters can be considered against alternative post and adjusted against other avenues as similarly circumstanced Parcel Porters have been adjusted at Bedding Porters etc, this Tribunal had issued mandatory direction upon the Respondents to consider the present applicants against available vacancy of Porters in other categories commensurate with their medical fitness of less than C-I category, which would make them eligible for such post But, with their memo dated 12.01.2014, Sr. / 3 DCM in an attempt to sit over the directions of this Tribunal and thereby to scuttle the power of judiciary has opined as under:

"Since for the absorption as Parcel Porters the requirement was for fitness in 'medical category C-l and the petitioners in the present case were not found fit in medical category C-l. The Railway Administration being duty bound to implement the Hon'ble APEX Courts' orders, it was not possible to provide employment as parcel porters, to the petitioners in WP(C) no. 433 of 1998, WP (C) no. 121 of 2000 WP(C) 640 of 2007.
Since the Hon'ble APEX Court's order are in the following unambiguous-terms in WP(C) 433 of 1998, para- 34 "the units of railway administration are not required to absorb on permanent„basjs such the contractor labour railway parcel' porters %hjKare found medically unfit/ unsuitablefTor^sSch^hj^loyment" which has again been reiterated in^ara^^-^f^the^mder of Hon'ble Court in WP(C)j:640 pf^^^^^nsfeering the present petitioners for emplOymentVSesplii^hel^mecffcilly unfit in C-l category wou ih^tkntairrawfif jto^J^iolatW of the Hon'ble Court's In thdabbve^baGEgr.ound, railway administration has . no option toseonSi'der'the^case of the present applicants for employment, in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order which have been made the basis by the applicants seeking employment in terms of present OA filled before the Ld. Tribunal.
Thus the case is disposed off as per order of Central Administrative Tribunal dtd. 14.11.14 passed inOAno. 671 of 2013."

Bare perusal of the decision referred to by the Respondents would show that the Hon'ble Apex Court in A.I. Railway Parcel and Goods Porters' Union !} / 4 Vs, UOI & Ors. [2003 (11) SCC 590] at Para 5 of the judgement, had succinctly held as under:

"5. The absorption of the eligible petitioner's in the writ petitions on a regular ad permanent basis by Railway Administration as Railway Parcel Porters does not disable Railway Administration from utilizing their services for any other manual work for the Railways depending upon its needs."-
Therefore, it was the bounden duty of the Respondents to explore other avenues to adjust the said ParceLPorters^against appropriate posts depending N, \ upon its needs. Instead of/folfowine^the^said^direction of the Hon'ble Apex /-v X\\!/£X / As •'v k Court, the Sr. Divisional vGommeFc:M)|M^a|er ift his own wisdom, without ; r~ 1 | 5 p-j consulting the officers ihchighe%form,\nns?Tejected the case of the present V / / applicants, who have been fptmd,Mfit for,ab^omtiqn as Parcel Porter but fit for various other jobs with comparatively dower^fitness level, a list whereof runs . thus:
"Category C-2 (1) Commercial:-
1. Commercial Superintendent-
2. Chief Cash Witness / Cash Witness
3. Clock Inspector / Winder
4. Warden and Instructor of Training Schools
5. Lady Inspector (Refreshment Rooms)
6. Superintendent (Lost Property Office)
7. Inspector of Dispatches
8. Office clerk / enquiry clerk
9. Packer/Sorter
10. Polisher
11. Syrup Maker
12. Filler
13. Checker 5 ] 6. Chief Catering Inspector / Catering Inspector
17. Weighment Inspector
18. Masalchi /Bearer
19. Sail Maker (Otherwise known as Tarpaulin-repairer) (2) Engineering
1. Office Clerk
2. Jamadar peon / Daftary / peon / Farash
3. File Lifter/Book Binder
4. Sweeper / Bhisly
5. Office chowkidar / Office Waterman / waterwoman
6. Material Checker (Signal Workshops)
7. Assistant Watch and Ward Inspector
8. Workshop Clerk
9. Workshop Time-keeper
10. Office Draftsmen
11. Khalasi other than Shop Khalasi
12. Rest House caretaker XXX XXX XXX • (41 Operating >
1. Loco Instructor
2. Signaler (except [ tbose,shc>>vn in cla'ssfr|2)v ^ \\
3. Office cherk / V 4-, All other Offico staff;nof;fnentiqned^el^jpiere.J;

5. Waterman f ^ c

6. Running Room Staff- P as !

7. Box Porter/ Cal] Man/_Messenger^/Gh|blvvkidaf

8. Bhishly (not engaged\in watenn^toGkjpass^ngerjor goods)

9. Bar setter / Telephone Vttdndam^1 '

10. Traveling Purter/lugga'geXorten^----- / /

11. l.C. Van Porter

12. Waiting Room Staff V. *

13. Safaiwala / Safaiwali / Dhoby

14. Saloon Attendant

15. Punkha Khalasi

16. Washout Jamadar 1 7.'Phone Clerk

18. Telegraph Peon XXX XXX XXX (61 Stores

1. Depot Material Supdt. 1,11 & III

2. Time-keeper

3. Messenger

4. Water man / Khalasi / Safaiwala / Safaiwali

5. Daftry / Jamadar peon 1 XXX XXX xxx"

The above list is extracted from an Advance Correctidn Slip to para 510 V 6 of IRMM, 2000 as contained in Annexure-A/9 to the O.A. /•••V 4. Having failed to consider the matter properly in terms of the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court and order passed by this Tribunal, which was a consent order, the said officer, being the Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway, Howrah, has misdirected himself and erroneously rejected the case of the present applicants. Accordingly, the memo dated 12.01.2014, as contained in Annexure-A/14 to the O.A., is quashed. Matter is remanded back to the authorities for appropriate direction in accordance with the decision extracted (supra) and\theSdifeqtiomof this Tribunal in the earlier round. Let an appropriate ofde?be$fsiSj/^hin tt|b\nonths.
%\
5. O.A. is, accqrdingl^3^^^s"ed^ofjf4o ejects.
                                    ' "5           / / I \ \ ''sdS'
                                                                s?
                                                                             k**.   ?
                                                             %

                                    \V^ ,                             ^ y                  £         -----
        (Dr. Nandita CITatterjee)          \
                                           % is.                        j-
                                                                                        (Bidisha Banerjee)
                                                                       s
           Member (A)                                                                       Member(J)



        RK/PS