Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
M.V. Rama Chandra Prasad vs Secretary on 15 December, 2008
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH HYDERABAD Original Application No. 800/2008 Date of Order : 15.12. 2008 Between: M.V. Rama Chandra Prasad ... Applicant And 1.South Central Railway rep. by its General Manager, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 2.Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway. Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 3.Secretary, Railway Institute, South Central Railway, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4.Divisional Railway Manager, Personnel Branch, South Central Railway, Vijayawada Division, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ... Respondents Counsel for the applicant ... Mr.Ch. Satyanarayana Counsel for the respondents ... Mr. M.C. Jacob, SC for Rlys. CORAM: Hon'ble Mrs. Bharati Ray ... Member (Judl.) Hon'ble Mr. Hriday Narain ... Member (Admn.) ORAL ORDER
{As per Hon'ble Mrs. Bharati Ray, Member (Judl.)} Heard Mr. Ch. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.C. Jacob, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. It is the case of the applicant that he was appointed as casual labour on daily wage basis on 20.5.1994 by the 3rd respondent. Thereafter he was appointed as a Librarian at Railway Institute which is under the control of 1st respondent for monthly honorarium of Rs.300/- per month on 1.9.1994 in the vacancy of Sri M.V. Viswanadham. It is the contention of the applicant that he continued till 2003. It is further contended by the applicant that the respondents issued Circular No.154/2000 dated 1.8.2000 i.e in respect of recruitment of Group `D' category in the railway staff working in the organisations connected to Railways. As per the proceedings dated 14.12.2000, the qualification required for Group `D' was prescribed. Although the applicant is having complete requisite qualification, the respondents did not consider his case. The applicant came to know that his case was not considered for absorption and his juniors were appointed. He made a representation to consider his case for appointment to Group `D' category but no action has been taken by the respondents. The applicant submitted a representation dated 8.10.2004 to the Railway Minister copy of which is annexed as Annex.A-8 to the OA at pages 16 & 17. He has also submitted another representation dated 25.8.2006 to the General Manager, S.C. Railway wherein he has stated that he had fulfilled the conditions laid down and has requested for sanction for his absorption in Railways in Group `D' post. A copy of the said representation is annexed as Annex.A-11 to the OA at page 20. We find from the letter addressed by the Secretary, Railway Institute to the Sr. DPO, Vijayawada which is at page 21 of the OA that one Sri M.V.R.C. Prasad has been engaged on 1.9.94 by the then Secretary as per the Institute records and the then Secretary had already sent the details of the staff working at Railway Institute/ STPM to Sr. DPO/BZA vide letter dated 26.11.1999 but the employees' applications for absorption are not available in the Institute. However since the applicant has not been absorbed in the Institute, he approached this Tribunal praying for a direction on the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for recruitment to the post of Group`D' category in view of Circular No.154/2000 dated 1.8.2000 issued by the respondents.
3. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Circular No.154/2000 is required to be gone through and the same is, therefore, extracted below:
The matter has been considered by the Board. It has now been decided that as a one time relaxation, the Railways may consider absorption of only those staff of quasi-administrative offices/ organisations who were on roll continuously for a period of at least three years as on 10.6.97, and are still on roll, subject to fulfilment of prescribed educational qualification required for recruitment to Group`D' posts. Such staff should have been engaged within the prescribed age limit. Such absorption should be resorted to only after exhausting the list of ex-casual labour borne on the live, casual labour Registers/ Supplementary Live Casual Labour Registers. The Units/ Bodies whose staff are proposed to be absorbed in this manner and their total number should however be first intimated to the Board and the process should be undertaken only after Board's clearance. Proposals sent to the Board for such clearance should have the personal approval of the General Manager. A plain reading of the above Circular would show that there had been demand raised by both the recognised staff federations that those staff of quasi-administrative offices/ organisations who were working in these offices as on 10.6.97 should be considered for absorption in Railway services, as was being done earlier in terms of Board's letter No.E(NG)/III/77 /RR-1/5 dated 26.8.77. The matter has been considered by the Board and a decision has been taken as one time relaxation. Therefore, the decision was taken in regard to the absorption of the staff that who were working as on 10.6.1997 and had completed three years service prior to 10.6.1997 and having the prescribed educational qualification will be considered for recruitment to Group`D' posts and such absorption should be resorted to only after exhausting the list of ex-causal labour borne on the live casual labour registers. From the representation of the applicant dated 8.10.2004 (supra) we find that it is clearly mentioned by the applicant that he submitted his application for consideration for recruitment in Group-D services but the same was rejected without suffcient reasons except for the reason that he was short of three years service by two months ten days. From the particulars given by the applicant, we have noticed that the applicant joined the Railways on 1.9.1994. Therefore, it is clear that he could not complete three years of service s on 10.6.1997. Therefore, evidently the applicant could not fulfill the condition mentioned in the Circular and, therefore, his case was rejected. The applicant submitted another representation in 2007, copy of which is at page 23 of the OA wherein he has categorically stated that he was engaged on daily wages at STPM Railway Institute on 20.5.1994 and continued upto 2003. In his representation he submitted that he applied for Group-D appointment through Secretary to the then Welfare Inspector but was not aware as to what had happened to his application and, therefore, requested to consider his case. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to the letter of Public Information Officer dated 27.2.2007 addressed to Sri A.B. Avadhanulu, Ajit Singh Nagar, Vijayawada which is a letter issued in response to the application dated 30.8.2006 made by the said person. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in para 3 of the said letter it is mentioned that Sri M.V.R.C. Prasad i.e. the applicant herein was engaged on 1.9.1994 and he has not completed three years of qualifying service as on 10.6.1997 for absorption into Group`D' service as per the Railway Board orders. He, therefore, submits that the applicant could not fulfill the condition stipulated in the said Circular and , therefore, he was not entitled to get the benefit of the said Circular and further submits that the representation submitted by the applicant is hopelessly barred by limitation. He further submits that a plain reading of the Circular would show that circular was issued as a one time relaxation. He relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi Vs Secretary, State of Karnataka reported in 2004 SCC (L&S) 935. We also find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the Circular has been issued for the purpose of absorption of only those staff of quasi-administrative offices/ organisations who were on roll continuously for a period of at least three years as on 10.6.97 and the applicant could not fulfill one of the conditions i.e. he could not complete three years of service as on 10.6.1997. No other scheme or circular could be shown by the applicant with regard to absorption of his services thereafter. In fact the applicant has approached this Tribunal seven years after the Circular was issued and his case was considered and absorbed he was not as per the Circular dated 154/2000 on the ground that he could not complete three years of service as on 10.6.1997. Since it is undisputed that the applicant joined on 1.9.1994 it is evident that he could not complete the required service as on 10.6.1997. Learned counsel for the applicant requested to direct the respondents to dispose of his representation dated 25.8.2006. We are of the view that since the cause of action arose long back in the year 2000 and his case was rejected on the ground that he could not complete three years of service as on 10.6.1997 and we have also noticed that the applicant could not fulfill one of the conditions mentioned therein for the reason that he joined in service on 1.9.1994 and, therefore, he could not complete three years of service as on 10.6.1997, we are not ready to pass such a order.
4. That being the position and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi Vs Secretary, State of Karnataka , we find no reason to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for absorption in the absence of any such scheme available as on today. As mentioned above, Circular No.154/2000 was issued for asborption of Group`D' staff as a one time relaxation, the same has no application in this case. We, therefore, find no merit in this OA and the application is, therefore, not only barred by limitation but also devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly at the stage of admission. No costs.
(HRIDAY NARIAN) (BHARATI RAY) MEMBER (ADMN) MEMBER (JUDL) Dated the 15th December, 2008 (Dictated in Open Court)