Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Md Mahaboo Ali vs M/O Railways on 11 November, 2020
pls OA 1340/2014 2g, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH OS/O2TANI340/2014 HYDERABAD. this the 11 day of November, 2020. Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Katia, Judi. Member Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Admin. Member 1.Md.Mahahboo Ali S/o Nasar Mohd, Age 39 years, Oce : Technician Grade-I, O/o The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer, Electric Loco Shed, South Central Raibway, Razipet, 2. V.Rajendar S/o Chandraiah, Age $4 years, Qoc : Technician Grade-l, O/o The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer, Electric Loco Shed, South Central Railway, Kazipet. 3. K.Rajendar S/o Veeraiah, Age 49 years, Oce > Technician Grade-l, Ovo The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer, Electric Loco Shed, South Central Railway, Kazinet. 4. D.Sreenivas S/o Yakaiah, Age 45 years, Oce : Technician Grade-I, O/o The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer, Electric Loco Shed, South Central Railway, Kazipet, 5.5. Venkatnarayana S/o Komaraiah, Age 47 years, Oce > Technician Grade-I, O/o The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer, Electric Loco Shed, South Central Railway, Kazipet. Applicants (By Advocate : Mr.K.R.K.V Prasad) at sey tht | Union of India represented by The Chairman, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. Page bof 10 3.The Chief Personnel Officer, Rail Nilayam, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. 4, The Divisional Railway Manager, Secunderabad Division. South Central Railway, Sanchalan Bhavan, Secunderabad, . The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Secunderabad Division, South Central Railway, Sanchalan Bhavan, Secunderabad. .. Respondents (By Advocate: Mrs.A.P.Lakshmi, SC for Railways) Page 2 of 10 OA 1340/2014 ORAL ORDER ;
(As per Hon'*ble Mr.B.V.Sudhakar, Administrative Member).
fhroneh Video Conferencing:
2. The O.A. has been filed, questioning the re-structuring policy of the espondent's organization.
4 4
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants, who belong to the UR category, are working as Technician Gr with Grade Pay of Rs.2800/- in Electrical Wing of Electric Loco Shed, Kazipet. The applicants are eligible to be promoted as Sr. Technician with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-. The Railway Board has come up with a policy af re-structuring of certain Group'C" cadres vide RBE No.102/2013 dated 8.102013. In the said policy circular, the percentage distribution against the said re-structuring af cadres in respect of artisan staff has been mentioned under the head 'Engmeering Department including Workshop'. The percentage distribution of cadres in respect of artisan staff under the said head was given grade pay-wise, Para 4 of the circular clearly states that the existing classification remains unchanged and accordingly the selection will be based only an scrutiny of service record and confidential reports. In para 4.4 it was also specified that all vacancies arising purely due to the cadre re-
structuring shall be filled up by senior employees, who would be given the benefit of promotion w.ef 111.2013. In respect of the Senior Technician posts, the percentage has increased from 8 to 16 and, therefore, the number of vacancies to be filled up after re-structuring has to be done after examining the sanctions properly and also ensuring revised percentage Page 3 of 10 OS 1340/9014 distribution. The respondents have issued a Memo on 12.5.2014, giving the -» details of percentage distribution amongst various cadres and posts available in each grade. The position in respect of Senior Technician pasts in Electrical & Mechanical Wings was shown incorrectly, resulting in reduction of number of vacancies. The distribution of artisan stalf should oS . be in the ratio of 60:40, The sanctioned staff of artisan staff in Electro Shed as on 111.2013 was wrongly shown as 325. The number of posts to be operated in Electrical & Mechanical Wings in the ratio of 66:40 would come to 195 & 130 respectively. The revised percentage distribution taking ~ 195 posts in Electrical Wing would appear as 31, 86, 39 & 39 for the four grades. The 31 posts shown for Senior Technicians were reduced to 20 by surrendering 11 posts. There are 10 Senior Technicians jn position. As ¢ result, there should be 21 balance posts available for promotion trom the feeder cadre i.e. Technician Gr.I whereas in Memo dated 16.9.2014 issued by the respondents, only 10 employees were promoted as Senior Technicians, thereby 11 Technician Gr employees were deprived of promotional opportunity. This has happened because of surrendering af [1 posts. If the correct vacancy position were to be taken into account afer fixing sanetions correctly wut, 16% revised percentage of distribution in Sr. Technicain grade, the names of the applicants, who are SI.No.16, 18, 20, 21 & 22 in the seniority list of Technician Gr.T would come up for selection as Sr. Technician. Even if it is according to the sanctions, applicants would have been selected but for the surrendering of the 11 pasts. The sturendering of 11 pasts has reduced the revised percentage distribution from 16% to 10%. Para 12.1 of the Circular envisages that there should be matching savings, which is misconstrued. An incompetent authority has Page 4 of 18 OA 1340/2014 < taken action. Agerieved over the improper re-distkibutia nd non-grant of ON, NRA promotion, the O.A. has been filed, 4, The contentions of the applicants are that the distribution of posts has not been done in tune with the spirit of re-structuring, The revised percentage of pasts has decreased from 16% to 10%. The respondents have 7 surrendered 11 posts and thereby the promotions of the applicants in Technician Gr. was denied. Surrendering of posts in Senior Technician grade has led to more posts in Technician Gr and quicker promotion from Gr.ll to Gr, for those employees whe did not even fulfill the residency + period of two years. The improper manner of re-structuring has led to stagnation in Technician Gr. The purpose of re-structuring is thereby defeated. The senior employees not getting promotion has created a Class within a Class. Some employees are getting promotion and some are denied. Therefore, those who did not get the promotion have been discriminated because of the improper implementation of the re-structuring policy. The applicants represented pointing out the inaccuracy and it was also pointed out that the zone of consideration was not properly fixed.
3. Respondents in their reply statement state that the applicants are working in Technician Gr.I and that they were not coming in the zone of consideration to be considered for the post of Sr. Technician, Electrical Wing under cadre restructuring poliey of 2013, Among the S$ applicants, one applicant is from SC community and the other four are from UR category, As per the Railway Board order in regard to restructuring vide RBE No.102/2013, the revised percentage of cadre re-structuring of artisan OA I3S4ONO1d staff in Electrical W ing is as indicated in a tabular form in Para 4 of reply 8 statement, The sanctioned strength of Electrical Wing, Kazipet was worked out vide Memo 12.5.2014. The Senior Technician posts were filled up by.
eligible employees from Technician GrJ posts. The respondents have } submitted that while calculating the revised percentage of posts in Electrical Wing, Kazipet, the posts of S0% upgraded Group-D posts to Technician Gr. are not taken into account for calculating the revised percentage in terms of item no.18 of CPO/SC Circular No. 100/2013, Therefore, there is a variation in the increased percentage compared to the sanctioned strength of artisan staff of Electrical Wing as on 1.11.2013. The 21 upgraded posts of Group-D as Technician Cy-ITT were not taken inte account in Restructuring, 2013 as per the instructions submitted above. The upgraded 21 posts are to be kept as a separate block and not to be included for restructuring of cadres. The distribution of posts among Electrical & Mechanical Wings was circulated vide DRM letter dated 13.1.2013, excluding the 50% upgraded posts of Technician Gril The same is indicated in Para 6 of the reply statement in a tabular form.
Based on the Board's instructions, restructuring has been done after obtaining the approval of the concerned authority. Accordingly, 9 vacancies have been filled up with coramunity break up of UR-7, SC-1 & ST-I. The senior most employees excepting Sri Maloth Kota (ST employee) in the category of Technician Grd in Electrical Wing were considered for promotion by the DPC and the applicants were junior to them. The selected list was published on 169.2014, is in order. The cadre Page 6 of 10 OA 1340/2014 restructuring is a selffinancial scheme as per the Railway Board's Circular RBE No. 102/2013.
6 Heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings on record. "© SSeaaaaiennn °
7. i, The issue involved as per the applicants is that due to re-
tructuring, they did not get the benefit of promotion. On going into the details, we find that the Railway Board has come out with a policy of re- structuring the cadres on 8.10.2013. As per the said policy, the percentage distribution of cadres in respect of artisan staff has been changed as given in the table hereunder:
Category PB GP Existing > | Revised % Sr. Tech "PB-2 | 4200 8 16 Tech-] PB-1 2800 Al 44 Tech-II PB-I 2400 26 20 Tech-IH PR-I 1900 25 20 As can be seen in the table, the revised percentage in respect of Senior Technicians in the Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- has increased from 8 to 16%. The expectation of the applicants is that due to the increase in the percentage of posts in Senior Technician cadre, their opportunities for promotion should increase. Though the applicants have claimed that the total sanctioned strength of the Electrical Wing of Kazipet was wrongly shown as 325, but they did not produce any document to state that it is wrong. The respondents per contra stated that the sanctioned strength is 325 and that it is perfectly correct. Based on the restructuring policy, the Page 7 of 16 OA 1340/2018 respondents have worked out the revised sanctioned Strength in different artisan cadres as under:
ow Sanction porte | Revised Sanctioned | No, of posts | Saneilonsc SAH - ts , ; x ;
. Percentage | Strength as per | surrendered Strength as on Category restrneturing revised AL} i 2013 percentage after surrender Sr. Tech il 16 34 il 200 Tech-] 43 a4 8&5 13 72 Tech-TI 34 20 38 38 Tech-H] 10742] 20 38+2i 3842) upgraded upgraded ; posts posts Total 1924+21=213 100 1924+2{=213 24 LO8+21-- 189 | Hi, The table indicates that the number of posts in Senior Technician cadre have been increased from [1 to 31. This increase, as it is, if it were to be kept undisturbed, the opportunity for mere employees from the cadre of Technician Gr. to get promoted would have been enhanced. However, restructuring is a policy matter of the respondent's organization. Always restructuring is accompanied with matching savings. The matching savings would come in the form of Surrendering certain posts in certain cadres amongst the cadres which have been considered for restructuring. In the instant case, the respondents have surrendered 1] posts of Senior Technician. As a result, the number of pasts available for filling up afer restructuring is 20. The number of employees in position was 1] and the remaining 9 posts due to restructuring were filled up by constituting DPC. The community-wise break up is UR-7, 8C-1 & ST-1, The select lst was published on 16.9.2014. The employees selected are senior ta the Page 8 of 1d & OA 1340/2014 'yet applicants, excepting an employee from 3S vertimunity, who has been promoted against ST vacancy. The applicants state that surrendering of 11 vacancies led to denial of promotional opportunity to them, As was stated supra, the restructuring policy has an embedded element of surrendering ss, certain posts in certain cadres. Unless that exercise is done, the very concept of restructuring cannot be given effect to. Moreover, it is a matter which is In the demain af policy decision. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pushpa Rani,(2008) 9 SCC 242, has observed that when the Govt. organizations undertake restructurmg, the Tribunal/ Courts should not interfere in such matters. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
"Before parting with this aspect of the case. we consider it HECessary 10 reiterate the settled legal position Stat matiers relating to creation and abolition ef posts, formation and siructur lag/restructuring af cadres, prescribing the soxrce'made af recruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation of service records of the emplovees fall within the exclusive domain of the emplayer. Whar steps should be taken for improving efficiency of the adminisiration is also the preserve of the emplayer, The power af judicial review can be exercived in such matters ony OF it ts shewa Ghat the action of the emplayer is eontrary fo any constitutional or Staak utory provision or iy patently arbitrary or is Wliated due io mala fides. xxv Ti. The applicants have also raised a point stating that there is a variation in the number of pasts allocated to each cadre after restructuring. It has been properly responded to by the respondents stating that the revised percentage of posts of artisans in Electrical Wing of GLS/KZB, the posts of 30% upgraded Group-D posts to Technician-Hl are not taken into account for calculating the revised percentage in terms of item no.i8 of CPO/SC Circular No.100/2013. As-these 21 upgraded Group-D posts as Technician Gr. were not taken inte account for Restructuring-2613, the variation is Page 9 of 18 O& 1s40/2014 obviously seen. The same has been brought about in the table given above.
Policy envisaged by the Railway Board. Learned counsel for the applicants bas submitted that the respondents should have at least gone into the . adverse impact of restructuring, which set in stagnation in the cadre of (Senior Technician. By not doing so, learned counsel for the applicants stated that the very objective of restructuring policy has been defeated. We do not agree since the applicant not getting promotions would not mean that there is some defect with the restructuring policy. On the contrary we observe that certain other employees benefited by getting promoted from _ Technician GrJl to Technician Gr[, without fulfilling the residency periad of two years in the said grade. The restructuring policy is meant for providing promotional opportunities to different cadres and not to one cadre as has been tried to be argued by the learned counsel for the applicants. Overall promotional opportunities have enhanced and we do not find any error in implementing the restructuring policy by the respondents. As has been observed by the Hon"ble Supreme Court, the Tribunals have a very limited role in interfering with matters of restructuring. Therefore, based on the facis stated above and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we do not find any merit in the O.A. Hence, the same is dismissed with no order as to cnsts.
Hence, the action of the respondents was in tune with the Restructuring -