Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Rijo T vs Southern Railway on 29 November, 2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.180/735/2022
Wednesday, this the 29th day of November, 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Rijo T., Aged 28 years, S/o K.Thankachan
Apprentice Technician III
O/o SSE/E/TL&AC/KCVL Kochuveli
Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division
Residing at TC 34/268 Freeda Bhavan
Beach P.O, Shanghumugham, Trivandram
Pin. 695007. Mail id- [email protected]
- Applicant
[By Advocate : Mrs.Shameena Salahudheen]
Versus
1. Union of India represented by General Manager
Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai.
2. The Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Chennai.
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway
Trivandrum Division
4. Senior Section Engineer Electrical (TL&AC)
Kochuveli, Southern Railway Trivandrum Division
- Respondents
[By Advocate: Mrs.O.M.Shalina, SCGSC]
The application having been heard on 06.11.2023, the Tribunal
on 29.11.2023 passed the following:
O.A 735/2022 2
ORDER
Applicant, a Trainee Technician in Electrical Department of the Southern Railway, was selected on compassionate ground after his father had fallen ill and became invalid. Then he was called for a suitability test conducted by the Division on 16.07.2021, he passed the test and was selected and appointed as Trainee and deployed for training under Annexures-A2 and A3 communications. In both the communications, it is stated that the training is for three years; other conditions are also stated including remuneration. It is stated that, for the first year he is entitled to get a monthly stipend of Rs.18,000/- with dearness allowance admissible under the Rules, Rs.18,500/- in the second year and Rs.19,100/- in the third year. On successful completion of the training, after three years, he will be posted as the Technician-III Electrical/GS on a salary of Rs.19,900/- per month in Pay Matrix Level-2 subject to availability of vacancy.
2. The contention of the applicant is that he is having Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering obtained under Annexure-A4 from Sahara Shiksha Peeth. He also obtained certificate in Professional O.A 735/2022 3 Diploma in Civil Engineering from the Centre for Continuing Education, Kerala. According to the applicant, though he had produced Annexures-A4 and A5 at the time of appointment, was informed that, what is required is only the Higher Secondary Certificate. So, the qualifications were noted and he was deployed for three years training under Annexures-A2 and A3. Later he understood that persons who possess Diploma in concerned trade need to undergo training only for six months. He also relied on Annexure-A6 communication of the Railway Board which prescribes that those who are holding Degree/Diploma/ITI qualification in the relevant Railway related trade will get appointed as Skilled Artisan in the trade in which he has acquired his Degree/Diploma/ITI, they will undergo training for six months. Highlighting Annexures-A4 and A5, he requested the 4 th respondent to incorporate his qualifications in the service records, and then gave a representation that since he possesses Diploma in the relevant trade, needs to undergo training for only six months and requested for reducing the period of training and appoint as a O.A 735/2022 4 Technician. By Annexure-A8, that request stands rejected. Aggrieved by the same, he has approached this Tribunal for calling records leading to Annexure-A8 and quash the same, to set aside Annexures-A2 and A3 to the extent it prescribe three years training for the post of Apprentice Technician Grade-III, to direct the 3 rd respondent to modify Annexures-A2 and A3 and correct the training period as six months and regularise his appointment from the date of completion of six months, to direct the respondents to enter Annexures-A4 an A5 qualifications in his service records and to declare that he is deemed to have been appointed against regular vacancy of Technician Grade-III from the date of completion of training period of six months and grant him all consequential benefits like seniority, pay fixations and all other service benefits.
3. The applicant has also stated that he is entitled to get parity of treatment in the light of Annexure-A9 order in which a person, who is possessing Diploma was allowed to complete his training in six months. Similarly, in Annexure-A8 communication, reference has been made about RBE No.13/2019. He produced a copy O.A 735/2022 5 of the said RBE 13/2019 as Annexure-A10. According to him, it is totally irrelevant, it has nothing to do with the service of the applicant which is misleading. Thus he contends that the respondents ought to have appointed him after completing six months training instead of deploying for training for three years, which is illegal, arbitrary and against the standing instructions and Rules.
4. The respondents filed reply disputing the contentions of the applicant. According to them, the statement that, at the time of appointment of the applicant, though he had presented Annexures-A4 and A5, it was informed that what is required is only Higher Secondary Certificate, is false and misleading. He was directed for training for three years from 16.08.2021 because, at the time of appointment he had submitted 12th qualification certificate and later he submitted Annexures-A4 and A5.
5. According to the respondents, as per RRB Notification dated 03.02.2018, CEN No.01/2018, the minimum education qualification for the post of Technician Grade-III Refrigeration and Air Conditioning is Matriculation/SSLC plus ITI from recognised institutions O.A 735/2022 6 of NCVT/SCVT (National Council of Vocational Training/State Council of Vocational Training) in the trade of Refrigeration and AC Mechanic/Electrician/Wireman/Electronic Mechanic or Matriculation/ SSLC plus Course Completed Act Apprentices in the trades mentioned above. Referring to Annexure-A6, they said that the applicant is a Diploma holder in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, which does not come under the relevant trade for Apprentice Technician
-III/Electrical/AC. Since the applicant is not possessing ITI Certificate in relevant trade prescribed by the Railway Board, he will have to undergo three years training for the post of Technician-III/ Electrical/AC.
6. Referring to Annexure-A9 it is stated that the contentions of the applicant cannot be accepted on the principle of negative equality. The said Lijo Anto was appointed on 15.11.2017. But by mistake it came to the notice of the Railway Administration on a later date that he was sent for training only for six months. Meanwhile, he had completed four years of service, so that the mistake could not be corrected. Therefore, that cannot be taken as a ground for getting the O.A 735/2022 7 applicant's period of training reduced. In this connection, the respondents also relied on the decisions in P.Singaravelan and others v. The District Collector, Tiruppur and others [(2020) 3 SCC 133] and State of Odisha and others v. Anup Kumar Senapati and others [(2019) 19 SCC 626]. According to the respondents, the applicant has pointed out only one such case, which happened as a mistake due to oversight which is not a good precedent to adopt and therefore the applicant is liable to undergo training for three years.
7. The applicant filed a rejoinder. According to him, the RRB notification referred in the reply is for the post of Technician Grade-III in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, whereas the applicant is concerned about the appointment to the post of Technician-III in Electrical wing. Moreover, the contention that since the applicant is not having ITI in relevant trade is also contradictory as the provision specifically says that the incumbents holding Degree/Diploma/ITI in the relevant trade will get appointed as Skilled Artisan in the trade in which he has acquired his qualification and will undergo training for six months. In the instant case, the applicant was appointed as Technician O.A 735/2022 8 in the Electrical Wing possessing Diploma in Electrical and Electronics, which is the prescribed qualification and therefore, he is fully entitled to grant the reliefs sought for. According to the applicant, respondents cannot shrug off their responsibility by stating that grant of benefits to a similarly situated person was an illegality.
8. I heard the learned counsel on both sides.
9. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, rejecting his representation basing on Annexure-A10 is misleading and illegal. Annexure-A10 is not applicable in the facts of the case. They do not say that Annexure-A6 has become invalid; it is not withdrawn or amended. Moreover, according to the learned counsel, Refrigeration in Diploma is not offered by any institution. Diploma in Electrical and Electronics is in particular branch, AC and Refrigeration comes under Electronics, since the applicant possesses Diploma in the very same trade, he ought to have been deployed for training only for six months. Therefore, he has deemed to have been completed training after six months from 16.08.2021 and may be granted all the benefits on regularisation after six months from 16.08.2021. O.A 735/2022 9
10. On the other hand, according to the learned Standing Counsel, the post is Technician Grade-III AC in the Electrical Department. He has no such qualification and therefore, he should undergo three years training.
11. The applicant is admittedly a Trainee Technician, who was selected under the compassionate ground appointment after his father had become invalid. Annexures-A2 and A3 are the appointment letters. Annexure-A4 indicates that he is possessing a Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering obtained in the year 2014. He has obtained another Diploma in Civil Engineering, which has no relevance, since it is in a different trade.
12. Now he stands deployed for training for three years. Annexure-A6 is the amendment made to the Railway Establishment Manual Volume-I (1989 edition). The relevant portion reads thus:
"2. The matter has been reviewed in the light of relevance of a trade to Railway working and after due deliberations, the following clarification is being issued: -
"The Compassionate Ground Appointees(CGA) holding degree/diploma/ITI qualification in the O.A 735/2022 10 relevant railway related trade, if he/she gets appointed as Skilled Artisan in the trade In which he/she has acquired his/her degree/diploma/ITI they will undergo training for 6 months. In case of CGA degree/diploma/ITI appointed as Skilled Artisan in a trade different than that acquired by them, will have to undergo 3 years training. Practical training should be undertaken in shop floor and not in classrooms."
This amendment was brought into force on 24.11.2010. There is no dispute that this amendment in the IREM holds the field.
13. In other words, an appointee under the compassionate appointment scheme holding a Degree/Diploma/ITI qualification in the relevant trade, on being appointed as Skilled Artisan, is required to undergo training for six months only; if he is appointed in a trade different than that acquired by him, he will have to undergo three years training.
14. Here, Annexures-A2 and A3 indicate that the applicant was appointed to the post of Apprentice Technician-III in Electrical/GS branch. Evidently, the applicant possesses a Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering obtained in 2014. That means, it is clear that O.A 735/2022 11 he has acquired Diploma in the trade to which he is selected. Still, it is not understood as to how he was made to undergo three years training as stipulated in Annexures-A2 and A3. There is a contention by the applicant that even though he had made mention about Annexures-A4 and A5 qualifications at the time of appointment, that was not considered and he was told that what is required is only Higher Secondary Certificate and therefore he was deployed for training for three years. Later only, he came to know that a person possessing Diploma in particular trade is liable to undergo training only for six months and thus he made Annexure-A7 request for recording his qualification in the service records and then moved separate application for reducing his training to six months, which was rejected by Annexure-A8.
15. According to the respondents, the particular statement that though he had presented Annexures-A4 and A5 at the time of appointment, was informed that what is required is only Higher Secondary, is irrelevant, false and misleading.
16. This statement has not been expatiated by the O.A 735/2022 12 respondents. But we cannot forget certain ground realities. The applicant was appointed under the compassionate appointment scheme. Having regard to the qualifications, he was considered on the technical side. In all probabilities, normally, a person aspiring an appointment on compassionate ground will not suppress his qualification or underestimate himself. In other words, a Diploma holder will not suppress his qualifications or would project himself only as a less qualified Matriculate or person having only Plus Two to his credit. That means, the statement of the applicant that he had informed about his qualifications at the time of appointment need not be disbelieved. If the statement was incorrect, that could have been falsified by producing the application submitted under the compassionate appointment scheme. Therefore, this statement of the applicant should be accepted as correct.
17. Then we cannot forget that he is appointed to the post of Apprentice Technician-III Electrical/GS branch. Even if we leave Annexure-A5 certificate, which is in Civil Engineering, a different trade, Annexure-A4 cannot be lost sight of. It is a Diploma certificate in O.A 735/2022 13 Electrical and Electronics Engineering. As he is appointed as a Trainee Technician in Electrical Department, such a qualification is a higher qualification. From Annexure-A6 it is very clear that, if a person possesses a higher qualification in the relevant trade, he is liable to undergo training for six months. On the other hand, if he possesses only a Plus Two or Diploma in a trade different than required, he will have to undergo training for three years. The intention of the Board is very clear. Here, the applicant stands appointed as a Trainee Technician in Electrical Department, he possesses Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering. Therefore he should not have been deployed for training for three years which violates the mandate in Annexure-A6.
18. Referring to Annexure-A9 it is stated that one Lijo Anto, who is a Diploma holder, was granted a favourable treatment. He was given training only for six months. But according to the respondents, that is an isolated incident happened by a mistake, which was realised only long after, so that it could not be rectified. In my view, we need not disbelieve this version. Firstly, such a mistake was found out long O.A 735/2022 14 after the appointment and secondly, the applicant could not make out any other instance in which such favourable treatment was given to any person. Therefore, Annexure-A9 need not be highlighted to advance the case of the applicant. Here the applicant has his own foothold. The fact that he possesses Diploma in the same trade is more than sufficient to buttress the contention that he should have been sent for training only for six months, instead sending him for training for three years is illegal and against the Railway Board decision reflected in Annexure-A6.
19. In my assessment, the respondents have not explained such an illegality committed in the case of the applicant. In paragraph 6 of the reply they say that the RRB notification dated 03.02.2018 had stated the described qualification in Matriculation/SSLC plus ITI from recognised institutions of NCVT/SCVT etc. But that is in respect of Technician Grade -III in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning. Here as seen from Annexures-A1, A2 and A3, he was selected as Technician-III in Electrical/GS. Therefore, it is irrelevant to say something about the notification for the post of Technician Grade- III in Refrigeration and Air O.A 735/2022 15 Conditioning which has nothing to do with the selection of the applicant as a Trainee in a different trade.
20. Similarly, Annexure-A8 has been issued basing on Annexure-A10, but the latter document has no relevance in the present context. It does not displace Annexure-A6.
21. In my considered opinion, the respondents have gone wrong in sending the applicant for training for three years. Atleast from the date on which they had formally noticed that he is a Diploma holder in Electrical and Electronics, the mistake should have been undone. Therefore, Annexure-A8 is liable to be quashed. At the same time, I am of the opinion that he cannot be declared to have completed the training after six months. It is evident from the statement of the applicant himself that Annexurs-A4 and A5 were placed before the respondents only on 16.06.2022. Even though he might have stated about his qualification earlier, from Annexure-A7 it is clear that he had presented the certificates only on 16.06.2022. Therefore, immediately after 16.06.2022, his case should have been considered by the respondents, which has not been done. Within a O.A 735/2022 16 reasonable period such a representation was considered, but stands rejected by Annexure-A8 on 19.08.2022. I have already held that Annexure-A8 cannot stand judicial scrutiny. Therefore, subject to satisfying other conditions and availability of vacancy, I direct the respondents to appoint the applicant as a Technician Grade-III in Electrical/GS from 19.08.2022.
22. There will be a direction to enter his qualifications in the service records. It goes without saying that the applicant will be entitled to enure to his credit all service benefits flowing from such appointment.
Original Application is allowed to the above extent. No costs.
(Dated, this the 29th November, 2023) JUSTICE K. HARIPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER ds O.A 735/2022 17 List of Annexures Annexure A1: A true copy of the Order No. V/Z.735/Gr.C/Suitability dated 27.7.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A2: A true copy of the Offer Letter No. E95249 dated 28.7.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A3: A true copy of the Appointment order No. O.O No.33/2021/ELE/AC dated 16/08/2021 issued by 3 rd respondent.
Annexure A4: A true copy of the Certificate of applicant in Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering in the year 2011-2014 by Sahara Shiksha Peeth.
Annexure A5: A true copy of the Certificate in Professional Diploma in Civil Engineering in 2017 by Centre for Continuing Education Kerala Annexure A6: A true copy of the Railway Board Order No. RBE 166/2010 dated 24.11.2010.
Annexure A7: A true copy of the Request made by the Applicant dated 16.6.2022.
Annexure A8: A true copy of the Order No. V/P 535/VIII/MACP/ Elec/AC/Vol-II dated 19.8.2022 Annexure A9: A true copy of the Appointment Order No. V/P.268/VIII/EL/AC/Vol.2 of one Lijo Anto dated 15/11/2017 issued by the 3rd respondent Annexure A10: A true copy of the Railway Board Order No. RBE 13/2019 dated 16.1.2019.