Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
N Mari vs M/O Railways on 7 March, 2025
1 OA No. 208/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00208/2020
Dated this, the 7th day of March Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, Member (J)
HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, Member (A)
N.Mari @ Mariappan,
Licensed Cooly Porter/JTJ,
No. 85/27 Samath Bai Street,
Pavaiammal Illam, S. Kodiyur,
Jolarpettai, Tirupattur Taluk,
Vellore District. .....Applicant
By Advocate M/s. Ratio Legis
Vs.
1.The Union of India rep by,
The General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Chennai 3.
2.The Assistant Personnel Officer/Works,
Chennai Division, Southern Railway,
Chennai 600003. ....Respondents
By Advocate Mr. K. Vijayaraghavan
2 OA No. 208/2020
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Sisir Kumar Ratho, Member(A)) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:-
"to direct the respondents to call for the records related to the impugned order No.M/P.353/CC/OA 943/2017 dated 06.09.2017 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to appoint the applicant in terms of Railway Board's letter No. E [NG] II/2008/RR-3/1 dated 01.04.2008 (RBE No. 50/2008) and to pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper and thus to render justice."
2. The facts of the case as submitted by the Applicant, are as follows, in brief:-
2.1. The applicant submitted that he is the son of late M. Narayanan, Licensed Coolie Porter whose badge number was 10 and the same was to be transferred to the applicant in 1991. However, while transferring the badge, the railway authorities issued badge no. 13 in place of badge no. 10 belonging to his late father. The applicant is performing his assigned duties as a Licensed Coolie Porter with badge no. 13 at Jolarpettai Railway Station with effect from 1991.
2.2. It is submitted that the Railway Board issued a letter No. E [NG] 11/2008/RR-3/1 dated 01.04.2008 (RBE No. 50/2008) in connection with the appointment of licensed porters to the post of Gangman (now renamed as Trackman). As a onetime measure, all those licensed porters who are upto the age of 50 years and minimum age of 18 years as on 26.02.2008 were 3 OA No. 208/2020 eligible to be appointed to the posts of Gangman subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions :-
i. Only those license porters will be considered for appointment who were possessing a valid license in terms of extant rules as on 26.02.2008 i.e. the date of announcement in Parliament.
ii. Educational qualification may be kept as 'Read and Write'. iii. The appointment will be subject to surrendering the license and badge and right to be a license porter. No subsequent transfer of license would be allowed.
iv. The license porters should be medically fit for the post of Gangmen. v. The genuineness and authenticity of every claimant as a license porter for appointment is to be established and authenticated by the Sr. DCM. vi. The screening for appointment will be done by a Committee of 03 (three) Jr. Scale Officers of Commercial, Personnel and Civil Engineering Department nominated by Divisional Railway Manager. The Screening Committee would adjudge the candidates as per appointment criteria including 'read and write'. The recommendations of the Screening Committee would be approved by DRM. However, their placement will be done within the zonal jurisdiction in which they are working as license porters.
2.3. The said Railway Board letter sought that the exercise of appointment of Licensed Coolie Porters has to be completed within two months from the 4 OA No. 208/2020 date of issue of the letter and the applicant was subjected for screening test, but there was no official information to him regarding his non-selection. When the applicant sought for information about his appointment as a Gangman/Trackman he was advised to contact the Assistant Personnel Officer/Works, Chennai Division vide letter dated 03.03.2016. Thereby a representation was made by the applicant to the APO/Works who failed to act upon the representation. Therefore, OA No.943 of 2017 was preferred by the applicant and the same was disposed of the admission stage with a direction to the respondents. Subsequently, the impugned order No.M/P.353/CC/OA 943/2017 dated 06.09.2017 was passed by the 2nd respondent stating that there was discrepancy in the badge number and hence could not be considered for absorption which is contrary to the scheme. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA seeking the aforesaid relief. 3.1. The respondents have filed their reply opposing the relief prayed by the applicant. The Ministry of Railways issued instructions vide Railway Board's letter No.E[NG]/II/2008/RR-3/1 dated 1.4.2008 to absorb Licensed Coolie Porters as Trackman as a onetime measure, with certain conditions stipulated therein.
3.2. In pursuance of the Railway Board's decision dated 1.4.2008, an exercise was undertaken to appoint the Licensed Porters in the Chennai Division, subject to the terms and conditions, circulated by the Railway Ministry vide their letter No.E[NG]/11/2008/RR-3/1 dated 1.4.2008. The 5 OA No. 208/2020 respondents submit that, accordingly, call letters for screening of the Porters were sent to all the eligible licensed Porters. A committee of three officers was also nominated.
3.3. The screening test was held on 28th , 29th and 30th April 2008 and 1st May 2008. 800 licensed Porters appeared on their own will and accord before the Screening committee. As on 26.2.2008, there were 875 licensed Porters and out of which all the 875 were called for screening and only 800 Licensed Porters appeared. The Southern Railway administration never compelled the Licensed Porters to appear before the screening committee. The licensed porters do not have the status of Railway Servants. Out of the 800 Licensed Porters who appeared for the screening test, 321 were screened as they fulfilled the conditions stipulated in Railway Board's letter dated 1.4.2008. Out of this 321 only 267 were offered appointment. 299 licensed porters were found to be not able to read and write and hence they were rejected by the screening committee on that condition.
3.4. The Railway Board, vide their letter No.E[NG]/11/2008/RR 3/I dated 7.5.2008 further considered and decided that the Licensed Porters who were unable to read and write may be empanelled and appointed provisionally, subject to the condition that they would acquire the requisite ability to read and write, within a period of two months from the date of appointment. Further, it was also clarified that the candidates may be placed in the panel, according to their date of birth. Accordingly, those 299 licensed porters who 6 OA No. 208/2020 were not having the ability to read and write were also provisionally empanelled vide Notification No.M/P.564/LP/TM/2008[SL-II] dated 30.5.2008.
3.5. The respondents submitted that the applicant's case was rejected as he did not satisfy the condition of possessing a valid license as on 26.02.2008. The applicant filed OA No.943/2017 seeking a direction to consider his candidature for the post of Gangman/Trackman after a lapse of 9 years. This Tribunal disposed of the OA at the admission stage directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 16.03.2016.
3.6. Since there was a discrepancy in the badge number as evident from the allotment letter from the Divisional Railway Manager/Commercial which disclosed that it was only badge number 10, which was allotted to the applicant, whereas he was working under badge no.13 as a Licensed Porter and due to this major discrepancy, the applicant was not offered an appointment under the Scheme. Therefore the first condition of the scheme that the applicant must possess a valid license as on 26.02.2008 was not fulfilled. Hence he could not be considered for absorption. 3.7. The respondents submitted that the applicant raised his claim only after a lapse of more than 8 years, during which period, he had not made any claim at all. It is evident from the allotment order for transferring the badge from one Shri. M. Narayanan, the father of the applicant, issued from the Divisional Railway Manager/Commercial dated 27.12.1991 which discloses 7 OA No. 208/2020 that it was only badge no. 10 and the applicant was also served as a coolie licensed porter from 1991 to 2008 accepting this badge number. 3.8. It is submitted by the respondents that even if the badge number was erroneously mentioned while issuing transferring the badge by the Railways, the applicant might have agitated it in the year 1991 and not in the year 2017. Therefore, the request for appointment as a Trackman on the basis of the License No.13 was highly belated. In view of the above, the applicant's claim for appointment as a Trackman was rejected on the ground of discrepancy as well as on the ground of delay vide this office letter No. M/P 353/CC/OA/943/2017 dated 6.9.2017. Accordingly, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA as devoid of merits.
4. The respondents have filed their additional reply reiterating their contentions on the issue of maintanability of the OA on the ground of huge delay. The respondents further submitted that the transfer of a badge takes place only after a thorough and proper verification of the original license badge and the relevant documents submitted to the railway administration. Therefore, the respondents have rejected the applicant's claims as made without evidence, and the allegation that the railway administration had mistakenly recorded the badge number as 10 instead of 13, holds no merit.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records as well as written submissions by both parties.
8 OA No. 208/2020
6. Learned counsel for respondents has relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments :-
i. Order dt. 10.12.2024 of the Patna Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 266/2021 in the case of Hare Ram Rai and ors Vs. Union of India, through the Chairman, Ministry of Railways and ors., ii. Order dt. 06.11.2024 of this Bench in OA No. 605/2013 in the case of B. Santhanamahalingam Vs. Union of India, rep by its General Manager, Southern Railways and anr.
iii. Order dt. 16.12.2024 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in WP No. 19647 of 2023 in the case of UoI Vs. B. Manmathan.
7. In spite of the fact that this Tribunal has condoned the delay vide order dt. 04.02.2020 in MA No. 80/2020, Mr. K. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposed again on the point of limitation as the cause of action arose in 2008 and the applicant chose to contest the same in 2020 after a gap of almost 12 years. In this regard, he draws our attention to the Section 5 of the Limitation Act which states that "wherein an extension may be granted by the Courts if a part is able to satisfy that they had sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal for making an application. Hence, the burden of proof is on the party seeking condonation." In this regard, this Tribunal is very conscious of the position of the applicant who is a Licensed Coolie Porter and it is very unlikely that he is empowered enough to challenge the decision of the respondent authorities. The respondents in 9 OA No. 208/2020 their averments have stated that the screening test was held on 28th, 29th and 30th April 2008 and 1st May 2008 wherein 800 licensed Porters appeared on their own will before the Screening committee. On 26.2.2008, there were 875 licensed Porters and out of which all the 875 were called for screening and only 800 Licensed Porters appeared. Out of the 800 Licensed Porters who appeared for the screening test, 321 were screened as they fulfilled the conditions stipulated in Railway Board's letter dated 1.4.2008.
8. From this, it is very natural that the applicant was one among the 479 porters who were rejected in the preliminary stage for not fulfilling the conditions stipulated in the Railway Board's letter dt. 01.06.2008. It is very likely that he took his non-selection as legitimate until 03.03.2016 when in response to a query under RTI, the applicant was advised to approach the 2 nd respondent after he submitted an application to the respondent authorities on 16.03.2016 and since there was no response by the respondent authority he filed an OA No. 943/2017. Therefore, we are inclined to believe that it was a revelation to him in 2016 that his non-selection is unjustified. Therefore, the sword of delay and laches will not be applicable in the present case.
9. Learned counsel for respondents refers to the order of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Patna in OA 266/2021 wherein similar claim of a licensed porter has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. A fact check in that case shows that although the cause of action arose in the year 2008, the applicant was communicated the reasons for denial of appointment in the 10 OA No. 208/2020 year 2010. But he chose to agitate the same in the year 2021 which is not the same in the present case. The applicant in the present case was not issued any communication and he only came to know about the unjustified non- selection in the year 2016 through a reply to RTI. Further, in the case of Union of India and ors Vs. B.Manmathan in WP No. 19647/2023, of Hon'ble Madras High Court cited by the learned counsel for respondents the case relates to compassionate appointment wherein the employee had died in the year 2004 and his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected in the year 2015 resulting in the Writ Petition being filed in the year 2024 which is altogether different than the present case. Therefore, the grounds cited by the learned counsel for respondents on the ground of limitation are not valid in the present case and in the interest of justice, the limitation is set aside to hear the case on merit.
10. The RBE letter No. 50/2008 dt. 01.04.2008 is the operative guidelines for absorption of Licensed Coolie Porters as Trackman as a onetime measure with the conditions stipulated therein. The same is extracted below:- " R.B.E. No. 50/2008
Subject: Appointment of licensed porters to the post of Gangmen.
[No. E(NG)II/2008/RR-3/1, dated 1-4-2008] Pursuant to the announcement made by Hon'ble Minister for Railways in his Budget Speech for the year 2008-09 in the Parliament, the matter has been considered by the Ministry of Railways (Railways Board) and it has been decided that as a one time measure, all those licensed porters who are upto the age of 50 years and minimum age of 18 years as on 26/2/2008 may be appointed to the posts of Gangman subject to the fulfilment of following conditions:11 OA No. 208/2020
(i) Only those licensed porters will be considered for appointment who were possessing a valid licencse in terms of extant rules as on 26/2/2008, te., the date of announcement in Parliament.
(ii) Educational qualification may be kept as 'Read and Write'.
(iii) The appointment will be subject to surrendering the licence and badge and right to be a licensed porter. No subsequent transfer of licence would be allowed.
(iv) The licensed porters should be medically fit for the post of Gangmen.
(v) The genuineness and authenticity of every claimant as a licensed porter for appointment is to be established and authenticated by the Sr. DCM.
(vi) The screening for appointment will be done by a Committee of 3 (three) Jr. Scale Officers of Commercial, Personnel and Civil Engineering Department nominated by Divisional Railway Manager. The Screening Committee would adjudge the candidates as per appointment criteria including 'read and write'.
The recommendations of the Screening Committee would be approved by DRM. However, their placement will be done within the zonal jurisdiction in which they are working as license porters.
The above exercise should be completed within two months from the date of issue of this letter."
11. While the applicant claimed that he fulfils all the conditions for appointment to the post of Gangman, he was declared unfit since he did not meet the 1st condition of the scheme that he does not possess a valid license. The relevant portion of the disposal of his representation vide the respondent's letter dt. 06.09.2017 is reproduced below :-
" It is seen from the records that you have been called for appointment, that there is a discrepancy in the Badge No. as evidenced from the allotment letter from the Divisional Railway Manager/Commercial which discloses that it was only Badge No.10 which was only allotted to you, whereas you were working under Badge No. 13 as a Licenced Porter and due to this major discrepancy you have not been offered an appointment under the Scheme. Therefore the first condition of the scheme that you must possess a valid licence is not satisfied.12 OA No. 208/2020
Further, you have raised this claim only after a lapse of more than 8 years, during which period, you have not at all made any claim at all. Therefore, your appointment as a Trackman on the basis of the License No. 13 is highly belated.
In view of the above, your claim for appointment as a Trackman is rejected on the ground of discrepancy as well as on the ground of delay also."
12. It is undisputed that the applicant's father Late M. Narayanan was issued with a license porter badge no. 10 and subsequently, the applicant was provided with the license badge no. 13 which is evident from the call letter issued on 18.04.2008 by the respondent authorities. Further additional documents submitted by the applicant shows that he has been issued Free Pass (Second Class) no. 147373 and no. 147620 by Railway authorities on 09.05.2007 and 22.05.2008 respectively bearing Batch No. 13 against his name. The learned counsel for respondents vehemently argued that since the applicant did not submit license porter badge no. 10 issued in his father's name, he was declared not qualified for appointment as Gangman. We are at loss to understand that the applicant was not selected simply because he could not produce the badge no. 10 issued to his father when it is the railway authorities who only have powers to issue badge and a licensed porter cannot possess two badges at any time. It is therefore evident that the railway authorities issued badge no. 13 to the applicant only after receiving badge no. 10 allotted to his late father. Therefore, we believe the submissions made by the learned counsel for applicant that he submitted the badge no. 10 before the railway authorities and only after that he was issued 13 OA No. 208/2020 with badge no. 13 and for this very reason, all railway records including the license fee receipt, free pass issued in favour of the applicant contained his badge no. 13. Therefore, for want of a particular badge number which is the sole prerogative of the railways, the applicant cannot be held liable for issue of a different badge number to him. Last but not the least, whether the applicant has been issued with badge no. 10 or 13, the fact remains that he is the son of late M.Narayanan and working as a licensed porter continuously after demise of his father. The mere insistance of the badge no. 10 and subsequent rejection by the respondent authorities is a clear case of arbitrariness without application of mind which is not sustained in the eyes of law. Whatever discrepancy between badge no. 10 and 13 is solely and wholly due to the act of the respondent authorities. Therefore, the applicant cannot be denied his right under the law for the act of commission or omission of the respondent authorities.
13. We are conscious of the fact that implementing the RBE No. 50/2008 in the year 2025 may insist approval at the highest level in the Railways and that could be one of the reason for opposing the relief vehemently. However, we are equally of the strong view that equity must prevail and justice should be delivered irrespective of the administrative challenges it has.
14. To conclude, we are of the view that the applicant fulfilled all the conditions of RBE No. 50/2008 for appointment of licensed porters to the post of Gangman in 2008 and denial of his right by citing discrepancy in the 14 OA No. 208/2020 license porter badge number issued to his deceased father amounts to manifested discrimination and is non est in law. It was also the abundant duty of the respondent authorities to intimate the applicant the reasons for his non-selection in the year 2008, in the absence of which he was in dark until 2016 when he got to know the unjust rejection through RTI reply. Therefore, we are inclined to abide by the legal maxim "Jus est norma recti; et quicquid est contra normam recti est injuria" thereby meaning "Law is the rule of right; and whatever is contrary to the rule of right is a wrong."
15. To sum up, it is observed that the respondents have mechanically rejected the rightful claim of the applicant for the post of Gangman in 2008 that too without any proper intimation and also rejected his representations in 2017. Accordingly, the letter dt. 06.09.2017 is quashed and set aside and the respondent no. 1 is directed to reconsider the applicant in terms of Railway Board's guidelines, RBE No. 50/2008 and appoint him as Gangman with all consequential benefit as admissible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. The OA is allowed as above. No order as to costs.
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (Veena Kothavale)
Member (A) Member (J)
07.03.2025
SKSI