Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Anil Kumar Sharma vs North Western Railway on 1 March, 2022
(MA No.69/20212
(1)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Jaipur Bench, Jaipur
MA No.69/2022
IN
O.A. No.1/2022
Reserved on:22.02.2022
Pronounced on:01.03.2022
Hon'ble Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mrs. Hina P. Shah, Member (J)
Anil Kumar Sharma & Others ...Applicants.
(By Advocate: Shri C.B.Sharma)
Versus
Union of India & Others. ...Respondents.
(By Advocates: Shri Anupam Agarwal)
ORDER
Per: Dinesh Sharma, Member (A):
This MA, with prayer for interim relief, for maintaining status quo till the final decision on OA No.1/2022, was heard by video conferencing on 22.02.2022. The matter relates to absorption/redeployment of surplus employees from Sanket Workshop at Ajmer, which has been closed for operational reasons. The applicants have objected to the decisions contained in communications dated 08.12.2021 and 20.12.2021 (Annexures A/1 and A/2 of the OA), by which the respondents are going ahead with accommodating older employees (those retiring on or before 31.12.2026) even (MA No.69/20212 (2) when they have not given options for absorption at the Ajmer Workshop. It is stated that this is against the policies regarding such absorptions, will affect the applicants' seniority positions and is also against the options sought earlier.
2. The M.A. was heard, through video conferencing, on 22.02.2022. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that they have a strong prima-facie case. It would cause irreparable damage to the applicants if the respondents are allowed to proceed further with the implementation of decisions contained in Annexure A/1, which is challenged in the OA. The balance of convenience is also in their favour since nothing will happen if the status quo is maintained. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicants have no legally justifiable case for intervention by this Tribunal. They are challenging an understanding arrived at with the employees' union and which is beneficial to the majority of employees, especially those close to their retirement. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of not issuing any interim direction, which would, in effect cause more damage to a larger number of persons.
3. On perusal of records, we find that the reply and the rejoinder have already been filed in the OA. The pleadings (MA No.69/20212 (3) are thus complete and the matter can be finally decided after hearing the final arguments on merits. There is no prime facie evidence of any irreparable loss happening to the applicants. We are also unable to see any balance of convenience in favour of issuing an interim order which would, apparently, result in staying action affecting a number of other employees. These other employees are, incidentally, not even parties in the OA.
4. The MA is, therefore, not allowed.
(Hina P. Shah) (Dinesh Sharma) Member (J) Member (A) /kdr/