Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Md Quaisar Alam vs M/O Railways on 6 December, 2017
1
OA.No.925/2014/CAT/Bangalore Bench
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.925 of 2014
DATED THIS THE 06th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017
HON'BLE SHRI DR.K.B.SURESH, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI PRASANNA KUMAR PRADHAN, MEMBER (A)
Md.Quaisar Alam
S/o.(late) Md.Marrof
Aged about 58 years
Working as Chief Controller
Train Controller Office
South Western Railway, Hubli.
Resident of No.45, Fatima Manzil
Near Fatima High School
Keshavapur
Hubli-580 023. .....Applicant
(By Advocate Sri B.Veerabhadra)
Vs.
1. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer
South Western Railway
Hubli.
2. The Chief Personnel Officer
South Western Railway
Hubli.
3. The Divisional Personnel Officer
South Western Railway
Hubli.
4. The Union of India
Ministry of Railways
Rep. by its General Manager
South Western Railway
Hubli-580 020.
....Respondents
(By Advocate Sri N.Amaresh)
ORDER
(PER HON'BLE SHRI PRASANNA KUMAR PRADHAN, MEMBER (ADMN) Applicant has filed the present OA seeking the following relief:
i. Quash and set aside the impugned memorandum in No.H/P.612/III/SCOR/YMS/Vol.II dated 7.4.2002 (Annexure-A8) so far it relates to the applicant; letter in No.H/P.612/III/SCOR/Vol.III dated 10.11.2006(Annexure-A11) and letter in No.H/P.179/III/Guards/RTI/Vol.II dated 4.1.2012 (Annexure-A27) enclosing a copy of letter in No.H/P.612/III/SCOR/Vol.4 dated 2.1.2012, issued by the 1st respondents, as arbitrary, discriminatory and void for the reasons stated in the application, while directing the respondents to extend similar and equal treatment on par with others, who are similarly situate, who belongs to different batches of Traffic Apprentice Training, so as to remove disparity and anomaly not only in the matter of pay and allowances but also in the matter of seniority. ii. Direct the respondents to draw all consequential benefits.
2. From the submissions made in the OA and reply statement, the facts of the case emerge as follows:
The applicant was selected for the post of Traffic Apprentice having qualified in the written examination/interview conducted by the Railway Recruitment Board and was recommended to South Central Railway vide letter dated 5.7.1985. Thereafter, he was deployed for training as Traffic Apprentice w.e.f.
16.9.1986(Annexure-A1) in Batch No.C-10 and completed the training for 3 years and he passed final assessment examination held on 16.9.1989(Annexure-A2) and was given independent duty charge of Section Controller from 26.9.1989 as evident from the communication at Annexure-A3.
He was also ordered to officiate against the existing vacancy as Deputy Chief Controller for the period from 1.6.1992 to 14.2.1993(Annexure-A5). The 1 st respondent issued a communication dated 22.12.1999(Annexure-A6) wherein it was indicated that the applicant attended the final assessment on 16.9.1989 and he has been absorbed as Section Controller along with his colleagues 3 OA.No.925/2014/CAT/Bangalore Bench w.e.f.17.9.1989. Subsequently the 1 st respondent issued another memorandum dated 7.4.2002(Annexure-A8) saying that consequent on the revision of the date of entry to grade as Section Controller his pay has been revised and he has been absorbed on 1.6.1990 in place of 17.9.1989. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant along with others submitted representations in 2002(Annexure-A9). Thereafter, the matter has been taken through the Union also but without any result.
3. According to the applicant, in terms of Circular No.7/76(Annexure-A29), the result of the training should be deemed to have been announced on the last date of examination held after training irrespective of the date of announcement of the results and that those who pass in the examination should be assigned seniority in working posts from the dates following the last date of the examination. This being so, the date of absorption has to be effective from 17.9.1989. Following the date of last examination his basic pay was fixed accordingly. But by subsequent memorandum dated 7.4.2002, the same was withdrawn which is unjustified. Though he was not extended the benefit, in some cases like Sri S.A.Khuddus and others, their payment was revised and refixed immediately after the last date of examination. Therefore the applicant sought the same on account of pay as well as seniority as his date of absorption was given later than that of the last examination wherein he passed. Therefore he prayed for granting the relief stated above.
4. The respondents in the reply statement has first raised the issue of limitation saying that if the applicant was aggrieved by the order of 2002, he ought to have raised the issue long back rather than disputing the letters/orders of various years and therefore, on the issue of limitation alone the matter should be dismissed. They admitted the fact that the applicant undertook training from 18.9.1986 to 16.9.1989 and was absorbed as Section Controller w.e.f. 1.6.1990. Initially his pay was fixed in terms of instructions contained in S.C.No.7/76. But consequent on the revision of the date of entry into the grade as Section Controller from the date of regular absorption as SCORs, the benefits extended earlier was withdrawn and his basic pay was fixed accordingly. They further mentioned that the initial fixation of pay taking the working day following the date of completion of apprenticeship/training period, in terms of Rly. Board's letter dated 17.1.69(Annexure-R1) re-iterated through RBE No.238/1999(Annexure-R2) was revised vide memorandum dated 7.4.2002 consequent on the revision of the date of entry to the grade of Section Controller(SCOR) from the date of regular absorption as SCOR w.e.f. 1.6.1990. Sri S.A.Khuddus who is junior to the applicant and whose pay was fixed more than the applicant was later rectified, revised and refixed vide memorandum dated 7.4.2010 and the over payment involved was also recovered. The other person's pay named by the applicant in the OA has also been revised and they are drawing less pay than the applicant as on May 2010. There is no question of higher pay granted to the juniors. In the seniority list also the applicant is ranked senior to the persons named in the OA. Vide communication dated 2.1.2012 which is at Annexure-A27, the entire position has also been explained to the applicant. Hence the contention of the applicant does not merit any consideration.
5. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties who have also submitted written arguments. The Learned Counsel for the applicant while reiterating the submissions made in the OA submitted that the matter has been agitated by the applicant in various forums and he had also sought lot of information under RTI since it was not provided to him earlier. Hence he filed the OA only after the respondents did not consider the matter and hence the issue of delay 5 OA.No.925/2014/CAT/Bangalore Bench as pointed out by the respondents should not be taken into consideration. He mainly highlighted on the fact that based on SC.No.7/76, his appointment and pay was rightly fixed earlier. The circular dtd.3.2.1969 which was produced by the respondents at Annexure-R1 also mentioned that the apprentices should be absorbed against working posts on working day following the date of completion of the apprenticeship. The RBE No.238/1999 also reiterated the same. Therefore there is no justification of revising his date of appointment to 1.6.1990.
6. The Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the communication dated 2.1.2012 at Annexure-A27 to the applicant in response to his representation clarified the entire position and stated that the Railway Board's letter dated 15.5.1987 has been followed in his case and there is no irregularity in the entire process. He later on produced the said communication dtd.15.5.1987 but could not clarify as to how the said communication negate the provision stipulated in SC No.7/76. He also could not indicate as to how that would be relevant when the RBE No.238/1999 also stipulated that the apprentices should be absorbed against working posts on working day following the date of completion of the apprenticeship. He also did not clarify as to whether the circular No.7/76 regarding assignment of seniority of candidates who are fitted in the working posts after initial training in training schools has been revised and replaced by some other circular.
7. On the issue of delay raised by the respondents initially, we note that the matter has been agitated in different forums for a long time and the last clarification was given by the respondents in 2012 to the applicant explaining the matter. Hence we are inclined to condone the delay and take up the case on merits.
8. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions made by either side. The main issue relates to the grievance of the applicant against revision of his date of appointment which was earlier fixed at 17.9.1989 to 1.6.1990 and revision of pay accordingly. Reference has been made to serial circular No.7/76 which is at Annexure-A29 with circular No.P(R)612 dtd.9.1.76. The said circular vide para 1,2&3 reads as follows: Serial Circular No.7/76
Circuar Letter No.P(R)612, Dated.9-1-76.
Sub: Assignment of seniority of candidates who are fitted in the working posts after initial training in Training Schools.
In terms of para 303(a) of Indian Railway Establishment Manual (2 nd edition) candidates recruited through Railway Service Commissions for filling the posts of Asst.Station Masters, Guards, Ticket Collectors etc., are sent to training schools for initial training, and after successful completion of training, are absorbed in working posts in which they are assigned seniority according to the merit order assigned to them in the examination held at the end of the training.
2) (i) It has come to the notice that in assigning seniority to such staff in working posts, different dates are being adopted. Some units are reckoning seniority from the dates of announcement of results of training while others are reckoning seniority from the dates the candidates are posted to working posts after successful completion of training.
(ii) Clarifications have also been sought regarding the procedure to be adopted in regulating the seniority of candidates who fail in the training at first attempt and secure pass in subsequent attempts.
3) In order to maintain uniformity, it has been decided that the results of the training should be deemed to have been announced of the last date of examination held after training irrespective of the date of announcement of the results and that those who pass in the examination should be assigned seniority in working posts from the dates following the last date of the examination.
9. The Circulars placed at Annexures-R1&R2 and filed along with reply statement also pertains to regulation of the period between the date of expiry of the period of apprenticeship and the date of posting and it has been reiterated that apprentices should be absorbed against working posts on the working day following the date of completion of the apprenticeship/training 7 OA.No.925/2014/CAT/Bangalore Bench period. The communication dtd.15.5.1987(RBE No.119/87) relates to recruitment of traffic/commercial apprentices and spell out the modalities of recruitment, qualification, reduction of apprenticeship training period from 3 to 2 years and other matters but there is no reference to circular SC No.7/76 or assignment of seniority as stipulated therein. Therefore we fail to understand the reasoning given by the respondents in their communication of 4.1.2012 by making reference to letter of 15.5.1987. Therefore no cogent explanation has been provided as to under what circumstances the date of appointment/pay already fixed in respect of the applicant from 17.9.1989 i.e. the date following the last date of examination where he passed to 1.6.1990 was done. When the circular SC.No.7/76 provide for consideration of date of appointment as the date following the last date of examination, the question of date of absorption as Section Controller does not have any relevance. Accordingly, Annexure-A8 order and communication dtd.4.1.2012(Annexure-A27) seems to be unjustified. However, the respondents have clearly indicated that his juniors' pay has been revised and they have been getting lesser pay than the applicant. Moreover his seniority has not been affected. Therefore there is no clarity as to the actual benefit that will accrue to the applicant if the date of appointment as Section Controller is pre-dated to 17.9.1989 in place of 1.6.1990. This has to be spelt out by the applicant to the respondents in detail.
10. On detailed consideration of the matter, we set aside the order dated 7.4.2002(Annexure-A8) as far as the applicant is concerned and the communication dtd.4.1.2012(Annexure-A27) and direct the respondents to treat the date of appointment of the applicant as 17.9.1989 in place of 1.6.1990. The applicant can submit a detail representation to the respondents as to the benefits that will accrue to him by taking his date of appointment as Section Controller as 17.9.1989 and the respondents shall decide the matter within a month thereafter.
11. The OA is allowed in terms of the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs.
(P.K.PRADHAN) (DR.K.B.SURESH)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ps/
Annexures referred to by the applicant in the OA.170/00925/2014 Annexure-A1: Memorandum dt.18.9.1986 Annexure-A2: Letter dt.20.11.1989 Annexure-A3: Letter dt.6.12.1991 9 OA.No.925/2014/CAT/Bangalore Bench Annexure-A4: Letter dt.20.11.91 Annexure-A5: Memorandum dt.16.6.1993 Annexure-A6: Memorandum dt.22.12.1999 Annexure-A7: Provisional Seniority list as on 1.6.2001 Annexure-A8: Memorandum dt.7.4.2002 Annexure-A9: Representation dt.21.5.2002 Annexure-A10: Item No.42/06 Annexure-A11: Letter dt.10.11.2006 Annexure-A12: Legal Notice dt.17.6.2009 Annexure-A13: Representation dt.24.6.2010/2.7.2010 Annexure-A14: Representation dt.12.7.2010 Annexure-A15: Reply to RTI application dt.13.4.2011 Annexure-A16: Reply to RTI application dt.18.5.2011 Annexure-A17: Letter dt.29.7.2011 Annexure-A18: Letter dt.2.8.2011 enclosing a Note dt.1.8.2011 Annexure-A19: Appeal dt.24.8.2011 under RTI Annexure-A20: Letter dt.26.8.2011 enclosing letter dt.24.8.2011 Annexure-A21: Letter dt.29.8.2011 Annexure-A22: Letter dt.22.9.2011 Annexure-A23: Letter dt.30.9.2011 enclosing Note dt.26.9.2011 Annexure-A24: Application dt.6.11.2011/25.11.2011 Annexure-A25: Representation dt.25.11.2011 Annexure-A26: Letter dt.5.12.2011 Annexure-A27: Letter dt.4.1.2012 enclosing letter dt.2.1.2012 Annexure-A28: Application dt.13.3.2012 Annexure-A29: Serial Circular Annexures with reply statement:
Annexure-R1: Copy of Railway Board letter No.E(NG)/II-67 AGI/4 dated 17.01.1969 Annexure-R2: RBE No.238/1999 Annexures with written arguments filed by the applicant:
-Nil-
Annexures with written arguments filed by the respondents:
Annexure-WR1: A copy of the letter dtd.Feb-2000 Annexure-WR2: A copy of the reply by the respondent No.2 Annexure-WR3: A copy of the provisional seniority list dtd.26.6.2001 *****