Gujarat High Court
Kailash Ramroop Meena S/O Ramroop Meena vs Union Of India on 24 April, 2018
Bench: M.R. Shah, A.Y. Kogje
C/SCA/19453/2017 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19453 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Sd/
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Sd/
=============================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see No
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as No
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
=============================================
KAILASH RAMROOP MEENA S/O RAMROOP MEENA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
=============================================
Appearance:
MR MS RAO(1144) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR KM PARIKH(575) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 8
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 24/04/2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) [1.0] By way of this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the Page 1 of 6 C/SCA/19453/2017 JUDGMENT impugned judgment and order dated 31.08.2017 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in O.A. No.29/2016, the original applicants have preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
[2.0] The facts leading to the filing of the present petition in nut shell can be summarized as follows:
[2.1] That the petitioners herein - original applicants (hereinafter referred to as "original applicants") entered into the railway service as Group 'D' employees and were serving as Gate Keepers. That the post of Gate Keeper came to be redesignated as Track Maintainer Grade IV with effect from 17.08.2012. That in the year 2013, two level crossing Gates i.e. LC No.31 and LC No.42 were manned and operated by the Engineering Department and since then the original applicants were manning the said LC No.31 and LC No.42 as they belong to Engineering Department. That in the year 2014, two "Flag Stations" located at Timbarva and Lutarva came to be upgraded as regular railway stations and as a result two LC Gates in which the original applicants were working came under the control and purview of Traffic Department. According to the original applicants thus all of them came to be transferred to the Traffic Department with effect from 10.09.2014 as a result of transferring Gate Nos. LC 31 and LC 42 alongwith them from the Engineering Department to the Traffic Department and consequently they became staff members of the Traffic Department with effect from 10.09.2014. It appears that however subsequently the Department was of the opinion that the employees like original applicants who were transferred to the Traffic Department by SSE Page 2 of 6 C/SCA/19453/2017 JUDGMENT (P. Way) were transferred by the concerned SSE without the authority under the law and infact even the original applicants did not apply for change of category / department from Engineering Department to Traffic Department, which was the requirement and the procedure to be followed. by an order dated 27.11.2015, the original applicants came to be transferred back to their parent Department i.e. Engineering Department. A further order was passed that vice them the Trackmen who have name noted for transfer to Traffic Department will be posted as per turn in priority list. Thereafter, consequential orders came to be passed vide order dated 01.12.2015 and 03.12.2015.
[2.2] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned communications / orders dated 27.11.2015, 01.12.2015 and 03.12.2015, the original applicants preferred O.A. No.29/2016 before the learned Tribunal.
[2.3] After giving fullest opportunity and considering the fact that the concerned SSE who initially transferred the original applicants from Engineering Department to Traffic Department was not having any authority under the law and even no procedure was followed before transferring the original applicants from Engineering Department to Traffic Department, by impugned judgment and order the learned Tribunal has confirmed the orders dated 27.11.2015, 01.12.2015 and 03.12.2015 retransferring the original applicants from Traffic Department to Engineering Department. However, at the same time the learned Tribunal has modified the reliefs and has observed and held and directed that the cases of the respective original applicants for promotion in the Engineering Department from the category of Track Maintainers Grade IV to Track Maintainers Grade III be considered with effect Page 3 of 6 C/SCA/19453/2017 JUDGMENT from 05.01.2015 if they are found fit in all other respects and their cases for promotion in the Engineering Department be considered from the date on which their juniors were promoted.
[2.4] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal confirming the orders passed by the Railway Authorities in retransferring the original applicants from Traffic Department to Engineering Department, the original applicants have preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
[3.0] We have heard Shri M.S. Rao, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original applicants and Shri K.M. Parikh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents at length. We have perused and considered the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. We have heard learned Advocates appearing for respective parties at length.
[3.1] At the outset it is required to be noted that all the original applicants were as such working in the Engineering Department. All of them came to be transferred by the concerned SSE (P.Way) from the Engineering Department to the Traffic Department. It is required to be noted that as such the appropriate authority to transfer an employee from Engineering Department to the Traffic Department was DRM who possess the authority for change of Department and category. Thus, it has been found that the concerned SSE (P. Way) was not having the authority to transfer the original applicants from Engineering Department to Traffic Department. It is also required to be noted that as such as per the procedure applications were required to be submitted by the Page 4 of 6 C/SCA/19453/2017 JUDGMENT concerned employee to transfer from Engineering Department to Traffic Department and their applications were required to be considered on merits and on the basis of the priority and considering the case of each applicant. No such procedure was followed. None of the original applicants submitted any application to transfer them from Engineering Department to Traffic Department. Thus, their transfer from Engineering Department to Traffic Department was absolutely without authority under the law and the same cannot be said to be a valid transfer in the eye of law. It is also required to be noted that as soon as the Department came to know about the said mistake and/or the mischief by the concerned SSE (P.Way), immediately within a period of approximately 3 months the mistake came to be corrected. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal committed any error in confirming the orders dated 27.11.2015, 01.12.2015 and 03.12.2015 by which a decision was taken to retransfer the original applicants from Traffic Department to Engineering Department.
[3.2] Even otherwise it is required to be noted that as such by impugned judgment and order the learned Tribunal has also taken care of the interest of the original applicants and has moulded the reliefs by directing the Railway Department to consider the case of the respective original applicants for promotion in the Engineering Department and to consider their cases for promotion from the post of Track Maintainers Grade IV to Track Maintainers Grade III from the date on which the juniors to the original applicants came to be promoted subject to they are found fit in all other aspects. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. We are in complete agreement with the Page 5 of 6 C/SCA/19453/2017 JUDGMENT view taken by the learned Tribunal.
[4.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Special Civil Application fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Notice is discharged.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) (A.Y. KOGJE, J.) Ajay** Page 6 of 6