Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
Jiban Ch Das vs M/O Railways on 22 November, 2018
Date of Order: This, the 22" Day of November, 2018. 'THE HON'BLE SMT. MANJULA DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
a TRE HON'BLE MR.NEKKHOMANG NEIHSIAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER | Shri Jiban Chandra Das a S/O Late Babul Chandra Das ~_RASM, Lumding, Assam.
Jyotish Chandra Sorma Station Master.
-Kamakhya Railway Station P.O~-Maligaon, Rly. Hd. Qrs.
'Guwahati- 781011, Assam Shri Bidyut Kanti Ray S/o Shi Upendra Narayan Ray Yard Master Lumding, Assam.
Shi Pranab Jyol Gagoi S/o Late Jiba Kanta Gogol Yard master Lumding, Assam.
Shei Dilip Chetry Yard Master, Lumding, Assam.
Mrs, Deepa Gogoi Kalita Station Master, Chaparmukh Nagaon, Assam.
Md. Mustak Ahmed CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ~ GUWAHATI BENCH Original Application No. 040/003882/2016 ae, oe
10. LE, 1 Station Master, Hola! nics By Advocates: OrJ.LSarkar, Mrs Nath, Mr.G.JSharma .
S/o Late Samser All TL, New Guwahati, Assam Shri Gautam Kumar S/o Sh Janarcdan Prasad.
Station Master, Badarpur, Karimoan], Assam.
Mel. Jakir Hussain Laskar S/o A. J. Laskar Station Master, Silchar, ~Cachar, Assam, "Shri Rahul Gupta S/o Late R.K. Gupta RSM, Lumding, Assam Me. ANUS Zaman Sid Md. S.A Station Master, Guwahil, Assarn Shri Dipak Kumar Nagaon, Assam She Sarna Kr. Boro S/o Sandi Ram Bore ASM, Khel, Assam
-Versus-
Union of India Represented through General Manager (P), NLF Railway, Maligaon, Guwahat 78101] OA No.040/00382/2016 Applicant, OA No.040/00382/20168 : General Manager, - a . N. FE. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahali- 78101] _ Divisional Railway Manager {P) _ Lumding, N. F. Rallway, Dist- Noaqgaon, Pin- 782447 Shri Tapan Ch. Kalitta . Station master, OMR (Dharmanagar), Tripura, Pin - 799250 Shel Bhupen Ch, Deka | _ Station Master, AJRE (Aujar)) Dist Morigaan, Assam, Pin- 782105 Shri Vinod Kumar Station Master, Lumding, Assam, Pine 782447 Shri Debendra Kumar 'Station Master, MXR(Mahuy), "NLC. Hills, Assam, Pin ~ 788830 Shri 8, P. Gupta Station Master, Badarpur Dist- Karimgan], Assam, Pin - 788806 Shi Rabi Bose Station Master, BRGM (Boraigram} Dist.~Karimganj, Assam, Pin- 788725 Sag Sankar Ray Station Master, New Guwahati Kamrup, Assam, Pine 781021.
Respondents Nos. 4 to 10 is working under responcent No.3.
Page 3 of 22 -OA NO.040/00382 2016 _. Respondents By Advocate: Ms.U.Das, $.C. Railways ORDER(ORAL) MANJULA DAS, MEMBER (J):
By this OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative THbunals, Act, 1985, fhe 13 applicants are seeking following relief{s)-
¢ "8.1 The seniority of the appiicants as on 01.04.2011 {Annexure ~ C) shall coniral fulure seniority In the cadre.
8.2, The seniority lists dated 12.03.2073 [Annexure --
~D) and dated 22.07.2015 (Annexure ~ H} be set aside cand quasned, 8.3, The Railway Board's letter dated 26.09.2012. (Annexure E} and the letter dated 13.03.2013 from the office of DEM (P}, Lumdirg (Annexure - Ff] be set aside and gushed. :
8.4, The letter dated 08.05.2015 from the office of GMIP), N. F. Railway, Guwahati (Annexure ~ G} be sel aside and quashed.
&4.. Costoaft ihe case,"
Page fof 22 OA No.040/00382/2016 2, | The respondents have served the notices fo ihe private respondents and as proof of service they have submitted the receipts of service upon them by way of a peiiion dated 14.02.2017. Several opportunities were granted to the private respondents fo submit their wiitten statements however, no written stalement had been filed not rany representation made on thelr behalf on so many secastons,
3. The facts, as narrated by the applicants in the OA ore that pursuant fo Employment Notice No.1 /2001 published on 09.06.2001 fhe applicants being eligible applied for 33 nos of vacancies of Traffic Inspector in the scole of Pay of Rs.500-9300. Selection result was published on 03.08.2008 and the applicants were selected, the "applicant nos. 1 to § joined as Traffic Apprentice on 10.01.2008, applicant nos. 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 & 13 on 10.04.2008, applicant no? on 09.04.2008. Thereafter they were sent for training. On account of implementation of 6 CPC recommendation, their pay scale was revised to Page Sof 22 Rs 9300-34800 + GP Rs.4200 per month. Seniority list as on 01.04.2011 was published showing the applicant's senionty from the date of joining the training.
4. | As per Raliway Board Circular No.107/2012 clause {i} and (fi) the seniorty of employees who joined between 61.01.2006 and 04.09.2008 would be protected as per pre-
"revised scale of pay and clause [iil] states that those who
--foin-on or after 05.09.2008 with the merged scale in PB 9300- 34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200 will be assigned a seniority belaw those who were in position as on 04.09.2008 and accordingly in the seniority ist as on 01 04.201 } published on 12.03.2013, the seniority was revisited and the present applicants have been shown below the private respondents. who were drawing lower scale of pay than the applicants prior to merger of scales by the 6® CPC. Applicants submitted representation for correction of seniority but no heed having been given, they have filed this OA.
5. DrJ.L Sarkar, learned counsel for the applicants supmifted that before the 4% CPC scale employees in scale OA No.040/00382/2016 OA No.040/00382/2016 of @s.4500-7500 {ASM} were promoted to next higher Grade of @5.5000-8000 and thereafter an completion of residency period were promoted fo grade of Rs.5500-9000/-. The Commercial Apprentice/Traffic Apprentice are direct recut in scale of Rs.S500-7000/-. Learned counsel contended that there is no scape of the employees {private
-spondents) in scale of Rs.400-7000/-. or Rs. 5000-B8000/- to have a march over the applicants direct recults inasmuch as 'he persons (private respondents} in the lower grades were not promoted at all when applicants the direct recuits were appointed against vacancies of 2001. The 6&® CPC merged the grades of Rs.4500-7000, Rs.§000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000 into one grace of Rs.9300-34800 + Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-, Thus, the private resoondenis in the lower grades of Rs.4500-7500 and Rs.5000-8000/- came to such Rs.9300-34800 no} by promotion following procedure of promotion against percentage of promotion as mandated by Rules. They were given the benefit of higher grade by process of merger.Page 7 of 22
&. Learned counsel further contended that Railway Board circular n0.107/2012 is self contradictory in that the clauses (} and {i} state that those who were drawing higher scale of pay shall rank senior and clause (ij fakes o contrary stand of placing at employees who drew higher : seal in the pre-revised pay fo those whe had a lower pre- "tevised scale of pay. According fo the learned counsel, poplican's 'are entitled fo rules prevailing at the time of notification of vacancies Le. 200] and the delay in oopoiniment was caused by the railways for which applicant cannot be made to suffer. The circular cannot 'have the retrospective effect.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that vide circular dated 22.07.2015 a seniority list as. on 01 04,2015 was published wherein the private respondents who were promoted in 2009 have been made senior fo the applicanis. | The aoplicants submitted representations against The wrong seniority list which did not yield any resull.
QA No.040/00382 {2016 Page 8 of 22 OA No.040/00382/20 16 Ms.U Das, fearned standing counsel for. the : railways has reiterated the contentions made in the written --
: statement contesting the claim of the applicants. Learned
- counsel particulary referred fo the statements rade to paragraphs 4, 6, & and of the written statement. According \.107/2012 and clarified by GM[P)/Maligaon vide letter dated 08.08.2015. Learned counsel referred to clause {ill} of the RBE No.107/2012 which reads as under
'THN Where recruitment for the posts in different ore-revised pay scale(s} was intiated separately for each pasts, prior to accepiance of the recommendations of 6 CPC, Le. prior fo 04.09.2008 but selected Individual joined duty on or after 05.09.2008 in the revised pay scale{s) against the posts which have been granted same Grade Pay, such staff will be assigned seniority
-enbloc below those who were in position as on-
04,09 2008. .
'Leamed counsel accordingly submitted fhat 6 CPC does not recognize principle of allemative quota rotation and therefore seniority of direct recruits is being assigned en-bloc OA No.040/00382/2016 below those who were in position on the date of joining Ihe regular service by direci reculls.
2. Learned counsel for fhe applicants has relied on the decision dated 23.10.2018 passed by the Hyderabad Bench In OA.516/2014 and series and suomitied that present ease is exactly similar to the sald case, and therefore, similar order may be passed In this case qiso.
10. "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings. documenis placed before US.
Ve. We have also perused fhe decision of the Hyderabad Rench relled upon by the learned counsel for the apolicanis. For better elucidation, operative portion of said) order is reproduced below.
e Brief tacts of ihe case are that the applicanis were selected oas Dy Stafion | Supat/ Traffic Apprentice/Commercial Apprentice in the scale of | Pay of Rs.5500-9000 and sent for Training. Affer training they were posied as Stafion Masters W/TsCommercial inspectors In PB 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200 in different divisions coming under znd respondent, The Respondenis issued ihe seniority ist for ine said OA No.040/00382/2016 scale of Pay correctly showing the seniority of the applicants. With the implementation of the 6th pay commission the grades of Rs 5O00-8000 and Rs S500- 9000 were merged into PB of Rs 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs 4200. As per Si. Circular 107/202 clause (i) and fi) the seniority of employees who joined between 1.1.2006 anc 49.2008 would be protecied as per ihe pre-revised scale of pay and clause (ii) states that those who join on or affer 59.2008 with ihe merged scale in P& 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs 4200 will be assigned a seniority below those who were in position as on 4,9.2008. Accordingly ine- senioriiy wos revised and. the opplicanis were placed below Those who we>re drawing lower scale of pay of Rs.S000-€000 prior fo the rnerger of scales by ihe éin CPC. Hence the grievance and therefore the OAs. oe
3. The contention of the applicants is that the SI Circular 107/2012. is self contradictory in that the clauses | and if state that those who were drawing higher scale of pay shail rank senior and clause i takes a contrary stand of placing of employees who drew higher scale in pre-revised pay fo Those whoa had a lower pre-revised scaie of pay. Rules prevailing. at time of notification of vacancies should be applied. Merger of the pay scales in in CPC has nothing fo do with seniottty. Further before revising the seniority no notice was issued in case of applicants in OA 1298 /2014. For fixing saniorty the provisions of _ para 30} of IREM have fo be followed and that for each scale . separale seniority list nas fo be. maintained, Creuiars cannot have tefrospective
- effect. The applicants raised objections against ihe revied sanionty jist and the same are yel to be resolved. Private respondents were Impleaded on 4
--yepresentative capacity as thelr Inferesis would be adversely affected, if fhe OA were fo be allowed, 4, The respondents contend that the seniornhy was. revised based on clause ili of the s} circular 107/2012 di 98.09.2012. While confirming that fhe applicants Page Ll af 22 . CA NG. 040700382 /2016 were put on jraining In the scale of Rs 8500-9000, the "respondents claim thal the applicants were absorbed only after draining for around two years. The argument of the respondents js that the applicants joined after | 'the 6th CPC racommendations were accepted and accordingly those who were inpostion as On £92008 shall rank senior to the applicants who joined later _ with the revised 6ih CPC scale. Rules on The subject have been clearly followed and that there is no bias towards anyone.
5 Heard the leaned counsel and perused Ine documents on record, & The learned counsel for the appilcants argued that applying clause fil) of fhe cited circular with retrospective effect is egal and thar the éth CPC has no relevance fo senioniy. The learned Ccaunsel for Ine respondents arqued with equal force thai rules have to be followed and accordingly implemented as ordained in circular 107/201 2.
7. Details were examined in depth. The issue hinges on the following aspects which call fora decisive analysis to arrive at a considered and a valued conclusion, qeCana circular have a reiros nective effect? i.
Generally any crcular or directive cannot have a retrospective effect particulary fn seyvice matters since if wil upset the settled position ieading fo complications in regard fo seniority, oromotions etc -- and hence should not be resored. If orders are issued based on changes in policy, which does happen, "applying norms idid in the new policy with. retrospective effect wil lead fo ihe" entire adminisiration going hay wire. Therefore, itis wail falc law that any statute. amendment rule, order will have prospective effect and no! retrospective effect unless if is otherwise specified with sound reasoning and the necessity to do so, Honourable Supreme - Court while dealing with a railway matter has OA No.040/00382/2016 observed in Union of India v. V.D. Dubey,(2010) 2 SCC 225, as under, declaring that an Amendment wil have only prospective: effect, :
13. The scope of ihe proviso to Rule 2423-A of Raitway Establishment Manual, Vol. J came vp for consideration before this Court in Raiiway Board v. D. Francis Paul £1994} 10 SCC 134 and this Cour held that amendment cannot have retrospective effect in respect of a person already in service bul would be prospective; tt would be applicable only to those candidates appointed affer the date of the amendment introducing The Pravise. therefore ihe provision which states fhat ihe concession be admissible only if ihe recruitment tule provides so, would operate only prospectively.
Another observation pertinent fo the issue. on hand of the Honourable Supreme Court is in regard to retrospective amendment of siatulory rules adversely affecting pension in Chairman, Railway Board and ors ys CR. Rangadhamadiah and oF in CA 4174-82 of 1995 where in if was held That:
*Retrospechve amendment of statutory rules, adversely affecting pension of employees who already stood retired on ihe date of notification, held. invalid"
in the present case the applicants joined ihe respondent organisation prior fo issue of the sh: Circular 107/2012, dt 269.2012. Therefore applying eircular of 2012 fo fhose who joined the respondents organisation earlier to 2012 is eqal and hence lacks validity. The argument of the respondents thal the applicants were absorbed affer training 's not jagical as the applicants were placed in the.scale of Rs $500- 9000 when they were put on roll for training.
2. Can a circular be arbitrary and discriminative? -
Pace 13 of 22 arbitrary in ail iis essence. Honourable Supreme Court has observed fesponderits organisation.
OA No.040/00382/2016
-H cannot because such a circular goes against Arhi4 of the constitution. The fixing of fhe cul of date of 59.2008 vide circular 107/2012 has. no rational basis. |} olaces employees in a higher scale af pay belaw those drawing lower scale of pay hitherto. Such. fixation is brational and unreasonable. Those who are in a higher scale of pay would be supervising those with the lower scale of pay. This principle fs being torpedoed by bringing in a cul off date without properly placing Those with higher scale of pay ala higher pedestal and hence is discriminative and
27. In Ramana Dayaram Shelly v. International Airport Authority of india (197%) 3 SCC 489 again this Court observed that a discriminatory action of the Government is fable fo be slruck down, unless Pocan be shown by the Government that fhe departure was not arbifrary, bul was bosed
-on some valid princiole which in iself. was not
- Irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.
"Circular 7107/2012 is envisaging fixation of common seniority based on two principles which are tangentially opposite as seen from clause | and clause ji differing from clause i. Therefore, the sald circular is not only Hlogical bul discriminative: Further, the same resoondents faking a sland that date of appointment shall be consiclered for fixing seniority in OA 184/2015 and asserting that # will be date of joining in OA 1298/2014 is highly discriminative. The -- resooridents ore not uniform in thelr actions. Such a. stand is net expected of o model ernployer lke the inferestingly the Secunderabad division has implemented the principle of placing employees with higher scale of pay Rs.5500-9000 as senior to Those drawing &s.5000-8000 but surprisingly other divisions not doing so: though they also come under the same OA No.040/00382/2016 Railway Ministry, smacks of discriminative action. The --
reason, they do the same work and being similarly "placed the benefits extended fo one group has fo. naturally flow fo the others who ara oon fhe same plane. Honourble Supreme Court has observed so in G.C.Ghosh vs Union of India reported In 1992 (19) ATC 94 as under:
"in the light of fhe command of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india the same treatment is required to be accorded ta ihe petitioners regardiess of the fact that they ore serving the Eastern Railway uriess if is shown that there is some distinguishing feature, for according a different treaiment."
3. Can statutory rules be changed affer they are sete No rule can be changed once it has been sei by a statute unless Hf is arnended. As on the date of notifications twe grades existed in the pre revised scales of pay of Rs 5000-8000 and Rs 5500- 000 which "had separate seniority lists drawn up. Para 301 /302 of REM indicate fhe principles laid dawn for fixing fhe seniority. As per these provisions date of appointment to a given grade has fo be considered for fixing _ seniority. Changing the same would require fhe amendment of the statutory provision of IREM stated. Statutory rules are backed by art 30? of the constitution and hence cannot be overuied by an executive instruction vide sl, Circular 107/2012. In fact
- Honourable Supreme Court has laid down fhat there _ shall be separate seniority list for each grade in Union of india and others vs V.K. Krishnan and others in CA
-- 2532 of 2010 as under: .
"As stated herein above, seniority list for employees working in different grades should be different and there cannot be any cammon 'senionty fist for all the employees in. one particular group"
Page IS of 22 OA No.040/00382/2016 in the present case the rules presc cribed separate seniority for each grade. Ta bring In inter se senioriy by combining two grades requires amendment of the statutory rule which was not done and hence the circular 107/2012 stands invalid,
4. Can conditions laid in a noivication be changed to ones disadvantage?
Honourable Supreme Caurt has clearly spelt sor that once a notification has been issued with cerfal ferms and conditions, one has fo adhere ia the same and cannot change it after the entre process has commenced or is over. in fhe case in question the applicants were appsi infed to fhe scale of Rs.5500- 9000 and their seniority fst was drawn accordingly in the said grade. Respondents having dane so, no - change can be brought about defiling fis character by ushering In a cammon seniomy. list without a rational and justifiable reasons. The observation of fhe Honourable Supreme court in This. regard, given hereunder, will put fhe matter in question to rest. The observation of Honourable Supreme Court in K. Manju Sree vs Stafe of Andhra Pradesh & anr reported in 2008 (3) SCC $12. comes to the rescue of the _ applicants where in was slated that #32, In Maharashtra SRTIC Vs, Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve, this Court observed fhat, "fhe rules of the game, me ning thereby, that the criferia for selection cannot be alfered by fhe authorities -- concemed in the middie or after the process of selection has cammenced"™. in ins case fhe position is rnuch more serious. Here, not only the rules of he game were changed, but they were changed affer fhe garne had been played and fhe resulis of the game mere bers awated, Thofis unacceptable and impermissibie"
Funther, Honourable Ernakwiarm bench of this Triounal, Honourable High Court of Uttarakhand and gat 22 'Honourable. Supreme Court In OA 1800/2015 di 15.38.2016, W.P (5) /B) No. 582 (2016 di 10.38.2017 and in AIR 1983 SC 852 respectively have held that the date of notification has to be taken Info account while considering the case of fhe applicants and fhe 'consequences of delay on the part of the 'respondents cannot be attributed to the applicants 'and could not put thern fo disadvantage. The 'applicants in the present OA had a different seniority as ser the notification prior fo 2012 and changing if 'by the execulive order vide circular 107/2012 s 'lmreguiar, The Hyderabad bench In OA 5469/2013 at
- 30.9.2015 has held that the date of vacancy has fo be taken in fixing he seniorfy and merger of the post has ne relevancy.
e
5. Can. there be outright classification of -
"employees without serving the very gurpose for which the classification has been done?
The circular 107/2012 was issued when the 6th CFPC was implemented wherein merger of scales discussed above was effected. The employees were Classified into lwo. groups of those who joined on or before 4.9.2008 and those affer. The 6th CPC was dealing with the pay scales and the Circular wilh seniority which. are folally disjointed. The circular. could have deal with the scales pertaining fo the ath CPC but not with seniority. This sort of classification which do not further the objective for which the classification was brought about would nof hold | good as per Honourable Supreme Court observation. "In Noakara. case in AIR 1983 SC 130 ( Constitutional Bench} where in ii was held that "The fundamental Principle is that Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable _classification for the purpose of legislation which classification must satisfy the twin fests of classification. being founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or Things thal are grouped fogether fram fhase that are lef out of the group and that differentia must OA No.040/00382/2016 Page 17 af 22 have rational nexus fo fhe abject sough? to be achieved by the statute in question."
Honourable Principal bench of this Tribunal has held a similar view in OA 1165/2017 af 2).4.2014 quoting the Honourable Supreme Court judgment cited. Further the circular [07/2012 by Hs very controversial content is making seniors junior and vice versa, This Is Imoermissible by an orbiirary action. Seniority | is aright and 4 decides the onward march of the employee In the organisation, } provides se curly io the employee specifying That he sfancs al a particular pasifion lawfully, Any enanee mage without reason will not only make him Insecure e but would. demoralse him which will lead '0 undesirable consequences of quarrels at work place, tee "ooroductivity, bitterness, unwarranted exmenditure p Higation and so on. Therefore a settled serioity pAicip) é cannot be unseitled by issue of an execulive instruction like Circular JO?7/ O12 as hos been observed by Honourable Supreme Court in the case of HS, Varikan! ond ors vs State of Gujarat and ors reporied in (2010) 4SCC 30) as under:
#25. Seniority is. a oy fight which has an important and vital role to play in one's service career, Future promotion of a Government Servan? depends either on stich senjonty or on the besis of sernanty-curn-ment or ment-cum- senionty etc, Seniority once settled is decisive In the upward march in one's chosen work or. | calling and gives certainty and assurance and boosts the morale to do quality work. i instils confidence, sorecds harmony and commands respec! among cdlleagues wens SA fsa paramount factor for good nd sound administration. If the setied seni ottty cat the instance of one's junior in service is unsetiled, if rnay generate biftermess, resentment, nasiility among the Government servants and the enthusiasm fo do quality work might be. losi.
QA No.040/00382/2016 OA No.040/00382/2016 Such a situation may drive fhe parties fo "approach the administration for resolution of thal acrimonious and poignant situation, which may consume lof of time and energy. The decision elfher way may drive the parties fo itigalive wilderness to fhe advantage of legal professionals both private and Government, driving the parties to acufe penury. If is well known that salary they earn, may nef match ihe~ Nigation expenses and orofessional fees and may af time drive fhe parties to ofher sources of money making including corruption. PUBNC
-maney is also being spent by the Government fo defend their ofhenwise untenable sfand. Furiher it also consumes lof of judicial time from fhe
-lawest court to the highest resulting in consiant bitterness among the pariies af the cost of
-sound administration affecting public interest. Courts aré repeating the ratio that the senionty once settied, shall not be unsetiled but the men in power offen violate that ratio for exiraneous reasons, which, at time calls for deparfmental action. Legal principles have been reiterated by this Court in Union of india and-anr vs A.B Goel and ors (2007) 14 SCC 641, LR Kapoor v State of Haryana (1989) 4 SCC 7}, Bimiesh Tanwar Vv 'State of Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 604,"
The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.R.Mucgal and others vs RP. Singh and ors reporied in AIR 1986 SC 2086 is also fo fhe same effect.
The respondents for an exiraneous. reason of merging of scales has upset the seniorly and thus the action of the respondents does not fle In the realm of logic. In fact In OA 1298 of 2014 show cause notice was not issued to the Goplicants before revising the seniority. Stalutery mie was given d pass over by an executive order. A cut off dale which has no relevance to the seniority was unnecessarily brought in to ursetile a settied matter of seniority. The learned counsel for the respondents have banked on the OA No. 040/00382/20T6 judgment of the Honourbdle Supreme Court ins.B. and. ors vs Yogender Kumar Srivastsava and ors di 15,1987 io further ther point of view. However, the Honourable Supreme Court citation quoted by the Respondents is based on a specific agreement beiween the Bank management and fhe officers association. in the present case there being no such agreement between the Respondenis organisation and the applicants or thelr respective unions, the said citation does not apply fo the case in question. The cutoff date of 49.2008 has been unilaterally imposed by the respondents whereas if is nol the case in the
-clied citation and hence the case law quoted does not come fo the rescue of the responders.
8. Therefore based on each parameter discussed above the controversial Circular 107/2012 does not hold ground. [hls agains! the provisions of REM (indian Raliway Establishment Monual), discriminative and arbitrary in nature, Jacks uniformity and is in, S@NOUS violation of fhe laws faid down by Honourable Supreme Court In regard fo senionly as discussed supra. The applicants made our a successful case. Therefore clause {il} of the Railway Board Circular {RBE No.107/2012 dt 26.9.2012) Is quashed and orders issued so far based on the said clause {ii} wil stand invalid. Consequently the respondents are directed to | consider.
i} Restoring The original seniority of the applicants consequent fo quashing clause il of the Railway Board Circular RBE No. 107/2012 di.26.9.2012, with consequential benelis ihereof,.
WH}. fi) Order issued fo be implemented within 3 months of receipt of fhe sarne
9. in the result. the OAs are allowed. Consequently, pending MAs stand disposed of, No order to casts."Page 20 of 22
OA No.040/00382/2018 whee 12 On perusal of the aforesaid decision we found that the. facts and circumstances of this cose are exactly similar to the decision relied upon. Learned counsel for ihe respondents "has not been able to produce any contrary decision. We, rerefore, are in agreement with the decision dated 28.) 0.2018 by the Hyderabad Bench in OA.516/2014 and series that (1) of the circular no.107/2012 is the against the provisions of IREM (indian Railway Establishment Manual), discriminative and arbitrary in nature, lacks uniformity and fs in seflous Violation of the laws laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in. regard to seniority as discussed in the said decision. Accordingly, we sat 'aside and quash the clause (8 of the RBE No. 07/2012 dated 26.09.2012 and orders nud so far based on the. said clause (8) wil stand invalid. Consequenily,. the respondents are directed fo restore the original senionty of ihe applicants consequent to quashing of clause {il} of the Ratiway Board Circular No.107/2012 dated 26.09.2012 with consequential benefits. The exercise shall be completed, as expeditiously as possible, but not tater than three monihs from the date of | receipt of this order.
OA No.040/00382/2016
13. With the above observations and directions, the OA disposed of. There shall, he no order as 10 costs.
Saye. . :
Manjula DES | Hon'ble Member "gtr, No Nelpsial von'ble Member (4)