Union Of India vs The Registrar on 14 February, 2011

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Union Of India vs The Registrar on 14 February, 2011

This writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench in O.A.No.853 of 2009 dated 14.02.2011 allowing the application filed by the applicants/respondents 2 to 7 herein.

2. The case of the respondents 2 to 7 herein before the Tribunal was that they worked as Cabin Masters in the Southern Railway in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000. Due to technological changes in the department, the posts of Cabin Master became surplus and the Railway Board issued a letter dated 28.12.2006 stating that all the surplus staff should be absorbed as Goods Guards/Assistant Station Masters in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000. This exercise has to be done after conducting initial training course, medical examination etc. According to the respondents 2o t7 therein, the letter issued by the Railway Board was acted upon and Staff employees who were rendered surplus like the respondents 2 to 7, were accommodated as Goods Guards/Assistant Station Maters in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000. However, the respondents 2 to 7 alone were accommodated in the lower post, i.e. Train Clerks in the same pay scale of Rs.4000-6000. Having been denied equal opportunity and their representation was evinching no response, respondents 2 to 7 herein approached the Tribunal, seeking parity in appointment as that of similarly and identifically placed employees.

3. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the respondents 2 to 7 that the post of Train clerk is the feeder category to the post of Goods Guards/Assistant Station Masters and they were only accommodated in the inferior post, i.e. Train Clerk, whereas, other similarly placed persons were accommodated either as Goods Guards or as Assistant Station Masters in terms of Railway Board's letter dated 28.12.2006.

4. The petitioners/Railways, however, resisted the claim of the respondents 2 to 7 on the ground that based on the performance in the training and also on the basis of the fact that such appointment was dependent upon the need in various railway departments. In such view of the matter, the respondents 2 to 7 cannot have any grievance.

5. After taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the Original Application on the reasoning that singling out the respondents 2 to 7 alone in the matter of appointment was per se discriminatory and the same is bad in law. Moreover the learnd Tribunal confronted with the petitioners/Railway that it has violated its Board's letter dated 28.12.2006, wherein, it was clearly mentioned that all the surplus staff should be accommodated either as Goods Guards or Assistant Station Masters in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000. Therefore, the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application and directed the petitioners/Railways to redeploy the respondents 2 to 7 in the post of Goods Guard in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 and also directed to complete the said exercise within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of its order. Against the above order, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the Railway Administration.

6. Shri V.G.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/Railways strenuously contended that although other similarly placed persons were accommodated in the higher posts either as Goods Guards or Assistant Station Masters, the respondents 2 to 7 could not be accommodated in the higher post for two reasons, viz., firstly, on the basis of performance in the training and on the basis of availability of vacancies in the divisions concerned. On being confronted with the question as to whether other similarly placed persons were accommodated in the higher post, the learned counsel submitted that such accommodation was on the basis of functional requirement. He further stated that respondents 2 to 7 had accepted to work as Train Clerks which was feeder cadre to the post of Goods Guards/Assistant Station Master and therefore, they cannot be heard to complain. He further stated that similarly placed employees who initially protested being appointed in the lower post, were subsequently accommodated in the posts of Goods Guards/Assistant Station Masters.

7. Shri L.Chandra Kumar, learned couinsel for the respondents 2 to 7 would contend that from the material on record and the averments, the denial of parity in the employment was per se discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. According him, the learned Tribunal, on the basis of facts and circumstances, has rightly concluded in favour of respondents 2 to 7 and therefore, the order passed by the learned Tribunal does not require any interference.

8. From the perusal of the record and on consideration of submissions made pay the learned counsel for the parties, it could be seen that the Railway Board's letter dated 28.12.2006, in fact, did not make any distinction as to how a surplus emplolyee should be accommodated on the basis of his performance in the selection/interview. It also did not make any distinction as to number of employees to be employed in the higher posts and lower posts. The contents of the Board's letter dated 15.6.2004 are extracted hereinbelow:

"Sub: Redeployment of Surplus Cabinmasters in scale of Rs.4000-6000 as Goods Guard/ ASM in scale Rs.4500-7000.

Kindly refer SR's letter No.P(S)608/11/TNC&Gds/Vol.III dated 25.8.2003 and 12.4.2004 requesting there in to redeploy surplus Cabinmaster in the higher grade by conducting an exclusive selection amongst Cabinmasters in the grade of Rs.4000-6000 for absorbing them as Goods Guard in the scale of Pay 4500-7000. The matter has been considered and it has been decided that with the objective of elimination of surplus staff, Railway may conduct the aforesaid selection against direct recruitment quota vacancies subject to their being found suitable (suitability includes passing medical examination in appropriate category) and passing of initial training course."

Sd/- Director (MPP) Railway Board

9. The above contents would cearly demonstrate that the candidates, subject to being found suitable, were to be accommodated in the post of Goods Guard/Assistant Station Masters.

10. In the instant case, it is not the case of the Railway Administration that respondents 2 to 7 were ineligible for appointment. Moreover, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners/Railwas that the persons who protested being appointed in the lower post of Train Clerk, were subsequently, accommodated in the higher post, viz., Goods Guards/Assistant Station Masters. We do not find any justifiable reason for denying the same benefit to the respondents 2 to 7 herein.

11. From the above, it can be seen that all the similarly place persons who were found surplus initially as Cabin Masters were accommodated in the higher post of Goods Guards/Assistant Station Masters except the respondents 2 to 7. Such exclusion of the respondents 2 to 7, is unconstitutional and contrary to the Railway Board's letter dated 15.6.2004 which was extracted above. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Tribunal does not call for any interference.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.

suk							      (K.K.S.,J.)    (V.P.N.,J.)
									 23 -02-2017
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
To
     THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,
     UNION OF INDIA       
     SALEM DIVISION,
     SOUTHERN RAILWAY,  SALEM
2    THE DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER 
      SALEM DIVISION,
      SOUTHERN RAILWAY  
      SALEM						
3   THE REGISTRAR                                
     CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL  MADRAS 
     BENCH  CHENNAI 104

K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.
AND                 
V.PARTHIBAN, J.      













Pre Delivery order in 
W.P.No.20307 of 2011















23-02-2017

http://www.judis.nic.in

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court