Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Shankar Lal Meena vs M/O Railways on 13 February, 2019
SS, HY DE RABAD OAV NRS 2018 Dated: 13.02.2019 Shanker Lal Meona, S'o, Panna R an : ween Aged about 37 yee Ocer Station Master 'Or. on Partur Railway Station, Nanded Division, Sauth Central Railway, Partur. Applicant AND 1, Unien of India rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railways. Secunderabad. a 2. The Chief Operating ¢ fanager, South Central Rarbvays, Secunderabad. 3, The Chief Persanne! Giticer, South Central Rarhways, se eunderabac. 4, The Devisional Railway Manager, Scauth Central Raibways, Nanded Division. Nanded. Respardents Counsel for the apnlicant : Dr, A. Raghu Kumar Counsel for the respondents : Mr. S.M. Patnaik, SC for Rivs Hon'ble Atv. fustice R. Kantha Rao, Member (J) Hon'hie Mr. BV. Sudhakar, Member (4) ORAL ORDER
er Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Kantha Rao, Member (J}] omens beara Le a Heard Dr. A. Raghukumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.ML Patnaik, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The applicant is working as Station Master at Partur Rathvay Station in Nanded Division. He applied for inter-zonal transfer to Agra Divisien in Narth Central Ratiway. His application was forwarded to the General Manager, North Central Railway on [7.12012 and the North Central Railway aceepted his request and agreed to take him to their Division on infer-zonal transfer vide proceedings dated 222.2012. There are several other employees like the applicant in the present OA. Some inter-zona! transfers were given effect to and some were not. Aggrieved by the same, oe Pe sme of the empler whose requests for inter-zonal transfers were considered bat were not relieved, approached the Triburial by filing Qua. NasfO20/258 to 262, 272, 390 to 392, 444 ta 448, S59, 360, 1080, LOST & 1{29 m PLS2/201S8. The Tribunal disposed af the O.As on merits by a common order dated 21.4.2016 and directed the respondent Railways to relieve the applicants therein within the time prescribed in the said order. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents fled Writ Petition No.3 1544/ 2016 & batch, The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the Division Bench of the Non'hle High Court by order dated 31.10.2017 confirming the order passed by the Tribunal and directed the Railway administration to effect the inter- agonal transfers in respect of the respondents therein by 282.2018 by try Behe he YORE RR ae relieving them to enable them to joim in their transferred places. Ts s ;
:
;
Ba x RN 8 faculitate the respondents iit Petition, the Railway Recruitment Board was further directed to complete the process of recruitment by
3. The applicant in the Instant O.A approached the Tribunal praying for the same reliel. His grievance is that even though more than 6 years have riot given effect to and he was nat ee elapsed, bis infer-zonal transfer was relieved from his present place to enable him te join in the transferred place, A The respondents contended as follows:-
rene nan! The applications of the employees are registered basing on zonal priority, A decision was made to relieve the candidates only after the positien is Improved since Station Master past is a sensifive safety category directly connected with train operations. They refuted the contentions of the applicant that the East Central Railway is sill willing to accommodate him, According to the respondents, the no objection given is conditional and tts walidity period is already.over. [tis further contended by the respondents that the applicant has no right for inter-zonal transfer and in the exigencies of service, his request for inter-zonal transfer can be rejected. According to the respondents the applicant, has no claim as perspective right lor transfer to another Railway or ariother establishment and, therefore, according to the respondents, it is net snandatory on their part to relieve the applicant. Wy Nexthy, i is submitted that the Railway Reeruliment Board had supplied certain munber of papers of Station Masiers but some of them had not joined the post, Therefore, action is on hand to convince the Recruitment Beard for some more RRB papers. It is submitted that while appreciating the grievance of the _ applicant/ employees, the respondents are Raund to look after the safety of the traveling public rather than giving oreference to individual needs. Drawing a distinction between Telecom Maintainers category and Station Master category, it is stated that Telecom Maintainers are of vital safety category where they bave to work in the running train for certain distance whereas Station Master works in the station attending operational duties. The pay levels are also said to be different a therefore, according to the respondents, both categories cannot be compared with each other, In Staten Master's case, the version of the respondents seems to be that the Hon'ble High Court had directed the Railway as Reeruliment Board to supply papers to Railway administration and. the diction laid down will net be applicable in the case of Station Masters. i} According to the respondents, relieving the applicant who is a Station Master would cause operational hazards and endanger the safety of general | public, Me -
7 Lastly, itis submitted that ensuring safety is the paramount Finetion yk Ps ' ty _ TY ety eh T Oot yeS PP ow of Indian Railways which cannot be compromisec nerefore, reheving of s will joopardize the travelling public.
Contending as above, the respondents sought to dismiss the OLA. a £3 The main contention of the respandent Railways appears to be that if he applicant, who is a Station Master, is relieved, the safety of general public would be im jeopardy and, therefore, they prayed not to grant any direction to relieve the Station Masters. ee Wes ys ert} fs ae cnn ee
6. Before proceeding to dispo! 45 O. A, the main grounds on which the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions are required to be noticed. In the earlier OAs against which Writ Petitions aa pow fe ose ne Ch were filed, the respondent Railways put forth the same contentions whic! row taken in the instant OLA. As the applicant in the present case and the applicants in those cases alsa contended that me delay im relieving them would jeopardize their career interest im the Railways to which they have sought transfer. In this content, H requires to be noticed that though the Railways have taken a decision to effect inter-zanal transfers basing on a priority list and ina tame betnd manner, the cases of some jumiors were considered ignoring the requests of seniors, This hag been made out from the Peery poe) pleadings of both the parties and there is ne dispute about the said fact and the said issue needs no ilustration. The Division Bench ef the Hon'ble High Court repelled the cantention of the respondent Railways that the applicants have no neht for transfer io ancther Ranway or another establishment. The Division Bench made an observation that there is always a ground for not relieving the respondents therein even afler three years of the transfer orders. The findings recorded by the Division Bench of the High Cowt in para 9 & 10 are as follows:
aon In the cases on fend, it is aat the case of the Administration that the requests of the respondents for Zonal transfer were liable to be rejected. Their requests were already accepted. The respondents did} not go to the Tribunal seeking a positive pawantms directing the Ratiway Administration to framster ey them feo one Zone to another. If they were seeking a transfer through Court order, the Adminiatr ation may be entitled to put Rule 226 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. 1G. But once their requests for Zonal transfers have heen accemed, | the sane cannot be Kept in wold: storage. veal ee § bee ah ie opey A tyes IPewe have a fook at the time fine of events, if could be ey kaieg bane dove oN "PP MWS tines seen that Oy ine C4 datec 2.) 1) .2008, the Administration: Gected to draw a tune-bound programme, Exadtly a period of 12 years has now passed from the date of the said Circular. No time- bound programme has been chalked cut by the Administration. The Circular alsa mandates that existence of vacancies need not deter the implementation of the orders of transfer. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in allowing the applications of the contesting respondents."
Therefere, the same contentions which are advanced in the present O.A by the respondents, were urged before the Hon'ble High Court. The Jon'ble High Court, considering all the facts and circumstances, passed the above mentioned order, 7, The learned counsel appearing for the applicant contended that if the inter-zonal transfer is not given effect and the applicant is not relieved, career prospects of the applicant, education of his chul idven and other family issues will be adversely affected. He also brought te our netice the fact that the applicant agreed to take up the bottom most seniority. Therefore, any further delay in effecting the inter-zonal transfer will jeopardize bis prospects. a. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that ifthe applicant is directed to be relieved, i would we endanger public safety and cause a fot of trouble for the Radway administration. The same contention in respect of the Station Masters was advanced before the Han' ble Nigh Court. But the Hon'ble Hieh Court did net accept the same, The inter-zonal transfers of several cadres have been aecepted by the respondent Railways and, therefore, we think it net proper to draw a distinction between various categories of emplovees and the Railway ie transh aF by ' relieving the applicant.
o. Shri S.ML Patnaik, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the tet Respondent Raliways contended that the applicant wanted for the decision of the Hon*ble High Court in the aforementioned Writ Petthons and filed the present CLA. As the applicant is nota party to the said O.As, he has not approached the Tribunal at appropriate time for redressal of his grievance, his original applications ought not to have been admitted by the Tribunal on account of the bar of imitation which is set out ufS 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. According to the learned counsel, alter the decision for inter- zonal transfers was taken, the applicant ought to have approached the Tribunal within the period prescribed wS 21 of the Tribunals Act. The learned Standing counsel also relied on a decision of the Non' ble Supreme Court in S.S. Balu & Another vs State of Kerala & Others dated 13.) 2009 ad wherein the Supreme Court in para 18 ofthe judgement held as follows:
defeats equity". Gavernment Order was issued on 13.).2002, Appellants did net file any writ application questioning the y affer the writ petitions = ' legality and validity thereat Oni Aled by others were allowed and State of Kerala preferred an appeal there against, they impleaded 'the mselves as party respondents, [t is now a trite law thal where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court afer a lang delay, reliefS prayed for may be denied to therm on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the [ket that they are ul 'ituated to the other candidates who abtain the of oo pan nr yes past jeod pee a benefit of the Judgement, Ip is, thus, not possibie fer us fo Igsue ayy direction to the State of Kerala or the Cc WUTHSSION to appomt the appellants at this stage.
(2007) 9 NCC 278, this Covart heleh eee "16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight af The respondents herein Aled a years. They did not agitate their ty i writ petition afier I enevances for a jong time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest possible apportunity, They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. His sot their case that after PQ82, thase employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said scale ofpay. After such a lang time, therefore, the writ petitions could not have been entertained even tf they are similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the court after alone time, Delay and laches are relevart facts for exercise of equitable jurisdiction,"
ae s Vhe judgement relied an by the learned Standing Counsel, in our view, ig tot applicable to the facts of the present vase. The said decision rolates io appoimtnent and the Supreme Court with reference to the facts of the case toak a view that the applicants only after knowing about the decision ¢ rendered by the Nigh Court in favour of same other candidates approached *% the High Court and. therefore, they are not entitled for the relief which was given to the applicants before the High Court. The fact situation in the case before the Supreme Court and in the present OA is distinguishable. In the ease before the Supreme Court, the appellants therein sought a mandanius in respect af their right to appeintment. In the present QUA, the request of the appleant for his infer-xonal transfer was already considered by the Rallway administration and he approached the Tribunal as the same was not giver effect to even after 6 years. Since the inter-zonal transfer of the applicant and other emplavees were ta be given effeet to oy the Rahway . ae 8 ie 1tteee ae Seu .
y "
Ze a AN at 2 x ¥ =~ ws Ss ainer basing on priority list, at ne point of time the goplicant in the iastant < request for inter-
zonal transfer, Stace as per the policy of Raibways, it has to be done in a time bound manner, the applicant waited for implementation and as it was not done within a reasonable time Tribunal. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the contention that the rellef prayed for by the applicant in the present QUA. is barred by limitation u/S 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Lf, As regards the question whether the decision of the Division Bench of the Hon"ble High Court in the above Writ Petition applies te the applicant in the present case, we are af view thet i applies to the Railways as well as the Railway employees whose requests for inter-zonal transters were approved " x and have been waiting for their release from their respective places. peed ay 12 seat ofthe learned Standing Counsel for the
2. We took note of ul Respandents about the inconvenience that would be caused to the Railways in the event of reheving the applicant irimediately. At the same time, we are conscious of the fact thie of the reheving of the applicant cannot be put an hold by the Railways indefinitely and the Raibvay administration has to effeet inter-zonal transfers within a reasonable time,
13. Adker rendering the aloremse ioned judgement by the Civision Bench awe taken nS af the Hon'ble High Court, the Respondent Railways ought to h steps to relieve the employees whose requests for inter-zonal transfers are ¢ toy the order passed accepted, But the Railway administration only gave effect by the Hon' ble high Court in the above batch of Writ Petitions, Visiz Ses aR al re rechan QreZON 3 X tad t a w th onths from the date < ant ta Ris in SIN IY ~ a To LQe ooed ee) ak = wee gy Seoacl aA oy.
bes Ne "
t 2 a a bad pas ot ek ae "NS S disc ;
3< pe rego a oN.
WK to the @ 4 ' i ieee cries