Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
M K Singh vs M/O Railways on 24 January, 2024
Yet
ie
i OA No.B9S/2017
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Mumbai Bench,
Mumbai.
D.ASSS2017
Dated this Wednesday the 24" day of January, 2024.
Coram: Ms.Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (Judicial)
MrShri Krishna, Member (Administrative)
Mukesh Kumar Singh,
Presently working as Senior Booking Clerk,
Turbhe Central Railway,
Ryat R.No.402, Anand Mhatre Apartment,
Wing B, N.R. Nagar, Diva CW),
Thane -- 400 612. . Applicant.
{ By Advocate Shri V.A. Nagrani ).
Versus
1. Union of India, through
The Chairman,
The Railway Recruitment Board,
Divisional Office Compound,
Mumbai Central, Mumbai -- 400 008.
2, Chief Personnel Officer,
. General Managers Officer,
Personnel Department,
;
ahnntigs,
Bh Me 4
ft
}
OA No. 395 /9017
south Central Railway,
Secunderabad -- 500 071 (AP).
. Divisional Railway Manager (P),
Nanded Division, South Central Railway,
Nanded ~ 431 601. . Respondents.
( By Advocate Shri R.R. Shetty ).
a
Order reserved on : 17.01.2024
Order pronounced on : 24.01.2024
ORDER
Per: Shri Krishna, Member (A)
The applicant is aggrieved by cancellation of his candidature for the post of Assistant Station Master on the ground that he did not report and did not respond to the letter of appointment received by him has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the AT Act seeking the following reliefs:
"a. This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case from the Respondents and after examining hold and declare that the order dated 17.05.2017 passed by Respondent No.3 is illegal and lable to be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits, b, This Hon*ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to issue appointment order to the Applicant for the post of Assistant Station Master with all consequential benefits.
3 OA Na 395/203 7 G, Costs of the application be provided for."
Be Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Junior Booking Clerk on 27.06.2008 in the Grade Pay of Rs.2000/-. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Senior Booking Clerk in the year 2013 in the Grade Pay of Rs.2806/.. The respondents issued advertisement of Employment Notice No.CEN-03/2012 for filling up the post of Assistant Station Master (ASM) having Pay Band of Rs.5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs.2800/-. The Pay Band of Assistant Station Master was revised to PB-2 9300-34500 with Grade Pay of Rs.4Z00/ on recommendation of 7" CPC.
3. | The applicant applied for the post of Assistant Station Master and after passing the examination he was called for document verification, He was selected by the RRB, Mumbai against direct recruitment quota and was issued offer of aripoininent stating that he is provisionally selected for the post of ASM for appointment vide letter dated 30.08.2015 and was directed to make correspondence with the Chief Personnel Officer, Senior Personnel Officer (R & R), South Central Railway H.Q. Office, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad-500 017 (AP). However, the applicant did not respond to the said letter. This letter was sent at the address mentioned by a! oases 3 Oa Na 398/201?
the applicant in the application form. Thereafter, the applicant made a representation to Chief Personnel officer, South Central Railway, Secunderabad vide his letter dated 16.09.2016 (annexed as Annexure A-3 in the O.A.) stating that he is selected for the post of ASM 'against CEN- 03/2012 for RRB, Mumbai, and RRB, Mumbai shifted 33 candidates for RRB, Secunderabad, RRB, Mumbai have sent confirmation letter in September, 2015 for selection to South Central Railway, Secunderabad. But South Central Railway, Secunderabad did not send any letter for information till now and he requested him to give some information about the selection for RRB, Secunderabad.
4, Thereafter, after lapse of about six months he sent another letter dated 10.04.2017 to Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Secunderabad stating that RRB, Mumbai allotted him for South Central Railway. The South Central Railway allotted him Nanded Division. Nanded Division did mistake in sending his appointment which he did not receive. When he requested three personal staff of recruitment department, they blame each other about acknowledgement and he asked for acknowledgement. He asked them to clarify --
"Ql. Please make arrange to available acknowledgement of post office of your sent any letter to my registered home address.§ GA No. 3985/2017
O2. What reason describe on returning letter by post mar.
y Q3. Idescribe 2 address on application form."
5. The applicant has submitted that pursuant to his representation dated 10.04.2017 the impugned order dated 17.05.2017 was issued by which his appointment was cancelled on the ground that he has not responded to the offer of appointment which was sent on 06.11.2015 and reminder dated 28.01.2016 on the ground that he has not responded to these letters and, therefore, the RRB papers have been returned to the Chairman, RRB, Mumbai on the ground 'Not Reported' and in turn they have supplied the replacement paper. Hence his candidature for appointment as Assistant Station Master in PB-1 is treated as cancelled.
6. it is the case of the applicant that he has neither been served with any letter of appointment and nor he has ever receive the letters dated 06.11.2015 and 28.01.2016 as alleged by the respondents. It has been submitted that the applicant was desperately waiting for the appointment orders from Respondent No.2 and since he did not receive any appointment order he submitted representation dated 16.09.2016. Itis submitted that it is only after personal visit of the applicant, the respondents have awakened and have made out an afterthought case so as te prevent their inaction of § Od NG.395/2017 sending the said offer of appointment order. The applicant has submitted that the respondents have not provided him any acknowledgement of the above letters. [tis submitted that the action of the respondents in cancelling the candidature on the ground of not reported is arbitrary, malalide and is in effect of taking advantage of their own wrong. Ithas been submitted that there could be possibility ef not sending the call letters by the respondents and due to the mistake on the part of the respondents he is made to suffer and, therefore, the O.A. deserves to be allowed.
7. On notice, the O.A. has been resisted by the respondents by filing reply. It has been submitted by the respondents that the applicant had participated in the selection process in the direct recruitment quota while holding the post of Sr. Booking Clerk, It has been submitted that provisional appointment letter was issued on 06.11.2015 to the applicant for reporting on or before 07.12.2015. The said letter was sent by Registered Post A.D., the details whereof are enclosed including the material which was returned by the Post Office. Since the applicant did not respond to the said letter, the respondents issued a further reminder vide letter dated 28.01.20167, a copy whereof along with details thereof is enclosed as Annexure R-|. Eventually since the applicant never responded, the respondents sent his RRB papers to the CPO, Secunderabad on 7 O& No.395/2017 02.05.2016 and the same is enclosed as Annexure R-2. Eventually, since the applicant did not respond his candidature was treated as cancelled the applicant made representation vide his letter dated 10.04.2017. His representation was decided on 17.05.2017 which is an impugned order. It has been submitted that in the light of the above submissions the O.A. is devoid of nay merit and does not warrant any interference at the hands of the Tribunal,
8. It has been further submitted that the applicant was appointed as Booking Clerk in Pay Band of Rs.5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs.20060/- in Central Railway and was promoted as Sr. Booking Clerk im the year 2013 with Grade Pay of Rs.2800/-. The applicant had applied to the post of Assistant Station Master in PB-1 Rs.5200-20200 Grade Pay Rs.2800/- against direct recruitment quota through RRB, Mumbai. Thus both the posts ie. Sr. Booking Clerk and Assistant Station Master were in the same PB-1 with same Grade Pay of Rs.2800/-, The applicant was issued a provisional appointment order dated 30.08.2015 by which he was informed that he was provisionally selected for the post of Assistant Station Master for appointment in South Central Railway, Nanded Division. The medical examination was not conducted by Nanded Division, The Respondent No.3 i.e. Sr, Divisional Personnel Officer had sent offer of el 8 O4 No. 3995/2017 appointment letter on 06.11.2015 and also reminder was sent to the applicant vide office letter no.SCR/P-NED/110/P- NED/110/14/Recruit/TVASM/Vol-II dated 28.01.2016 at his address Mukesh Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Ravindra Prasad Singh, Anand Mhatre Apartment Room No.02, N.R. Nagar, Diva (West) Diva, District Thane, Mumbai. As such the applicant has not responded to these letters. Since the medical examination was not conducted by Nanded Division, the Respondent No.3 i.e. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Nanded has sent his RRB Papers to CPO, Secunderabad on 02.05.2016 for further process. The CPO, Secunderabad has returned his RRB papers to Chairman, RRB, Mumbai due to not reporting by the applicant.
9, It has been submitted that both the letters were sent at the address given in the application form and since letters have not been received back it is presumed that they were received by the applicant.
10. The respondents have filed additional affidavit on the directions of this Tribunal dated 07.02.2018 to produce all records in order to demonstrate as to how and why the offer of appointment letter of the applicant had been sent to Room No.02. In reply, the respondents have submitted that on 28.01.2016 they had in fact sent the letter to Anand Mhatre Apartment, Room No.02, N.R. Nagar, Virar West and not to Room 3 OA NO.395/2017 No.402 as was contended by the applicant. Tt has been submitted that the applicant in his application form has given the address as Mukesh Kumar Singh, Anand Mahatre Apt, R.No.2, NLR. Nagar, Diva (W }, PO. Diva, City Diva, District Thane, Maharashtra -- 400 612 and both the letters dated 06.11.2015 and 28.01.2016 were sent on the above address and, therefore, it is presumed that they have been received by the applicant. It has been submitted that the first letter being offer letter sent on 06.11.2015 at the same address which was given in the application form bas not come back and, therefore, it is presumed that it has been received by the applicant, whereas the second letter was returned.
i. It has been submitted that another important fact is that the applicant is holding the post of Senior Booking Clerk which was in PR-1 with Grade Pay of Rs.2800/- under Vith CPC and was on par with Assistant Station Master. However, with effect from 01.01.2016, the post of Assistant Station Master was granted Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- but 5p. Booking Clerk continued to be in Grade Pay of Rs.2800/-. This led then the applicant trying to obtain the appointment in the post of Assistant Station Master after 01.01.2016. Therefore, the O.A. is Hable to be.
dismissed with cast.
San POON.
ok) 19 QA No.395/2017 faah bab We have heard both Mr. V.A. Nagrani, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.R.R. Shetty, learned counsel for the respondents at length and perused the documents and pleadings on record.
13. On perusal of the application form filled up by the applicant, we find that he has given his address for correspondence as under :
"Mukesh Kumar Singh, Anand Mahatre Apt., R.N-02, NLR. Nagar, Diva (QW), PO, Diva, City : Diva, Distt: Thane State: Maharashtra Pin Code-400 612."
14 The offer of appointment dated 30.08.2015 was sent to the applicant at the address given in the application form and the said letter has not been received back. The second letter dated 28.01.2016 was sent by Divisional Personnel On cer, Personnel Branch, Nanded Division, Nanded at _-- the given address vide his letter No.SCR/P-
NED/110/14/Rectt/T/ASM/Vol-IL dated 28.01.2016 by Registered Post vide Post Office receipt no. RM281133263IN stating that he was advised to . report on or before 07.04.2015 vide appointment letter dated 06.11.2015 to which he has neither reported nor communicated any sort of reasons for not reporting. The second part of the letter states that the applicant is being ah OA Ne.395/2017 given another opportunity to report to this office on or before 15.02.2016, failing which it will be presumed that that he is not interested to accept the appointment order and offer of appointment sent to him will be treated as cancelled and his RRB papers will be returned to Headquarters office.
ot
15. We find that Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that service by post shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing document and unless the contrary is proved to have been effected at the ime at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. Thus, ifa person alleges that he has not received a letter sent by registered post, onus lies on him to prove that he has not received if.
oo
16. We further find that the applicant is claiming that he has not received letter of appointment dated 06.11.2015 and reminder sent on 52.01.2016. However, he was in receipt of letter dated 30.08.2015 by RRB, | Mumbai informing him that he has been provisionally selected for the post of Assistant Station Master for appointment on South Central Railway. It was in the letter dated 06.11.2015 that he was given offer of appointment in the Operating Department in Nadiad Division and advised to report on or before 07.12.2015 and in the subsequent letter dated 28.01.2016 he was Wllitaniieaicsesenincce ee 42 GA No. 398/201?
advised that if he did not report on or before 15.02.2016 his offer of appointment will be cancelled and papers will be returned.
7. We find that the applicant in his representation dated 10.04.2017 has mentioned that South Central Railway allotted him Nanded Division. Thus, the applicant was very well aware that he has been allotted to Nanded Division. It may be mentioned that the letter issued by RRB, Mumbai dated 30.08.2015 states that he is allotted to South Central Railway, Secunderabad and he made further correspondence with CPO, South Central Railway. It was only by way of letter of DRM, Nanded dated 06.11.2015 that he was informed that he has been allotted in Operating Department on Nanded Division. Thus, it is clear that from his representation dated 10.04.20 17 that he was very well aware that he has heen allotted to Nanded Division. He has also mentioned in representation dated 10.04.2017 that Nanded Division did mistake of sending him appointment letters. This could not have been possible unless the applicant was aware that the CPO, South Central Railway has allotted him to Nanded Division. Therefore, the claim of the applicant that he has not received or that he was unaware of letters dated 06.11.2015 and 28,01.2016 is not correct, is DA Na.395/2017
18. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 17.05.2017. We are of the view that since the applicant has failed to report for joining the post of Assistant Station Master within the prescribed time, his offer of appointment was rightly cancelled. Therefore, the O.A. is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Shri Kfishna) -- ( Ms.BaiWhiider Kaur Oberoi) Member (A) Member QD.
qo