Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
M K Kalikulzaman vs M/O Railways on 13 June, 2024
1 OA No.310/00274/2015
`CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00274/2015
Dated this 13th day of June, Two Thousand Twenty Four
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI,MEMBER(A)
AND
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER(J)
M.K. Kalikulzaman,
S/o M. Khader Mohideen,
Rtd. Goods Guard (MDU),
Madurai Division,
Southern Railway, Madurai.
Residing at No.2, Mohideen
Andavar I Lane, South Gate,
Madurai. .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s S.S. Jothivani
Vs.
1. Union of India
rep by The General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Chennai.
2.The Chief Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway,
Chennai.
3.Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway,
Madurai. .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. K. Vijayaraghavan
2 OA No.310/00274/2015
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) The applicant seeks the following relief in the OA:
" to call for the records pertaining to Office order No.16/2014/II/Guard dated 28.03.2014, issued by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Madurai the 3rd respondent herein, and Order No.U/P.RTI/II/Guard/2014 dated 02.06.2014 issued by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Madurai and to quash the same and to direct the respondent 1 to 3 to consider and promote the applicant as Senior Goods Guard and to grant the eligible monetary and service benefits as per Railway Boards instructions issued vide No.PC-III/2013/CRC/4-RBE No.102/2013 dated 08.10.2013 and to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fir and proper in the circumstance of the case and thus render justice".
2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:
The applicant submits that he began his employment with Southern Railways, at Madurai, as a Casual Labourer, on January 3, 1979, and was granted Temporary Status on January 3, 1980. Over the years, he received several promotions, first to Pointsman B-1, then to Pointsman-A, and, finally, to Goods Guard in May, 2012. He retired from service on January 31, 2014. The applicant's grievance is that he was not promoted to the post of Senior Goods Guard, despite being eligible. The Railway Board's instructions (PC-III/2013/CRC/4/RBE No.102/2013, dated October 8, 2013) stated that restructuring was applicable to employees serving in the 3 OA No.310/00274/2015 relevant cadre as of November 1, 2013. The applicant was actively working as a Goods Guard on this date. According to clause 4.7 of these instructions, employees who retired, resigned, or expired between the date of effect of the orders and their actual implementation would be eligible for fixation benefits and arrears from November 1, 2013, if they met other eligibility criteria. The applicant was in service on the relevant date and should have been considered for these benefits. Furthermore, the applicant notes that the 3rd respondent issued Office Order No.16/2014/II/Guard on March 28, 2014, promoting other Goods Guards, including one R. Sekar, who was junior to him, but excluded him from the promotions despite the availability of vacancies as of November 1, 2013. As a result, he was denied promotion as Senior Goods Guard and the consequential retirement benefits envisaged under 4.7 in the Railway Board's instructions, leading to the filing of this Original Application for redressal.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant argues that the impugned order, dated June 2, 2014, issued by the 3rd respondent, is illegal and arbitrary. According to the order itself, the existing sanction for Senior Goods Guards, as of 01.11.2013, was 8 and actual was 6. Cadre restructuring created seven additional vacancies. Therefore, it is clear that on November 1, 2013, when issuing the impugned promotion order, the 3rd respondent should have considered the applicant for promotion, 4 OA No.310/00274/2015 despite his retirement on January 31, 2014, and granted the benefits, as per the Railway Board instructions. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the Principles of Natural Justice.
4. The counsel further contends that promotions for Senior Passenger Guards were issued promptly following the instructions, dated October 8, 2013, via Officer Order No.26/2013/II Guard, dated December 12, 2013. In contrast, promotions for Senior Goods Guards, based on the same instructions, were delayed until March 28, 2014 (Office Order No.16/2014/II Guard). Had the order of promotions for Senior Goods Guards been issued immediately after cadre restructuring, on January 1, 2013, as was done for Senior Passenger Guards, the applicant would have been promoted, being the senior-most Goods Guard eligible for promotion.
5. Additionally, the counsel highlights that, in another case involving the cadre restructuring of the Ticket Checking Category, candidates who retired after November 1, 2013, but before the promotion orders were issued, were considered for promotion and included in the promotion list (A-8). This occurred in terms of the Railway Board's letter, dated October 8, 2013, with orders issued on September 26, 2014. However, for Goods Guards in the Southern Railways, including the applicant, similar consideration was not shown, despite the vacancies as of November 1, 5 OA No.310/00274/2015 2013. This discrepancy amounts to discrimination among equals and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, reflecting arbitrary exercise of power and lack of proper consideration. Based on the above contentions, the counsel prays for the relief sought in the present Original Application.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submission of the applicant. He contended that the applicant was not sufficiently senior to be considered for promotion to the post of senior Goods Guard and this has been clearly informed to the applicant in reply to his RTI application. Respondents have followed the instructions contained in the Railway Board's order for implementing the Cadre restructuring of different categories of Railway employees and, hence, the claim of the applicant is not permissible.
7. He further contended that the applicant is comparing himself with Shri R. Sekar, as his junior, that he was given his promotion with prospective effect, vide order, dated 28.03.2014. It can be seen from the order itself that Shri G. Soundiram, who was shown as senior to the applicant herein in the office order No.19/2012/II/Guard, dated 12.07.2012, at Page 20 of the OA was also given promotion with prospective effect only in the promotion order, dated 28.03.2014. He, 6 OA No.310/00274/2015 therefore, contended that no vacancy was available to give promotion to the applicant with effect from 01.11.2013, when his alleged junior was considered for promotion on 28.03.2014 with prospective effect, the applicant was not in service and as such not eligible for promotion.
8. He further contended that the applicant cannot compare the promotion given to the employees belonging to the Ticket Checking category, wherein some of the employees who had retired form service on 31.03.2014, were given promotions in consideration of the vacancies available in their cadre. The applicant, who belongs to the Goods Guard cadre, cannot claim similar treatment by comparing him with the employees of another category. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the OA.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. S.S. Jothivani, and the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. K. Vijayaraghavan, at length, and perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record.
10. In the present case, it can be seen from the impugned order, dated 28.03.2014 (A-4), at Para II, that 7 employees were promoted as Senior Goods Guards. According to this order, promotion of the employees mentioned therein will take effect from the date they assume higher 7 OA No.310/00274/2015 responsibility, that is, only on or after 28.03.2014. The applicant who had retired from service on 31.03.2014 cannot claim promotion, since the office order, dated 28.03.2014, is with prospective effect and that, too, subject to shouldering of higher responsibility in the promoted post. Hence, the applicant is not eligible for the relief sought for.
11. We have also gone through the Office Order, dated 26.09.2014 (A -
8) in which some of the retired persons were given promotion at Sl.No.32 & 34 (Page 3 of the order) who belong to a different category, ie., 'Ticket Checking Category'. The applicant who belongs to the category of Goods Guard cannot compare himself with different category of employees, such as the Ticket Checking category, since seniority and promotion were issued in accordance with the vacancies available in those categories. We do not find any discrimination meted out to the applicant and there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16, as alleged by the applicant. Hence, the applicant is not eligible for the relief sought by him. 12, For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the applicant has failed to make out a case for the relief sought by him. In the result, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(M. SWAMINATHAN) (VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)
mas 13. 06. 2024
8 OA No.310/00274/2015