Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Yogendra Prasad vs Union Of India on 5 August, 2024
CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00124/2010 Yogendra Prasad &Ors. VS. U.O.I. &Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
Original Application No. 332/00124/2010
Dated this 5th day of August, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-Judicial
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
1. Yogendra Prasad, aged about 49 years, S/o Shri Kallu Ram Trivedi,
resident of Railpath Nirikshak Line, V.G. Colony.
2. Shiv Das, aged about 43 years, S/o Shri Pyare Lal, resident of -LD-
26-1, Running Shed Colony, Alambagh, Lucknow.
3. Anil Kumar, aged about 38 years, S/o Shri Pachki Hori Puwa, Post-
Madara, Hardoi.
.....Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through the General Manager, Northern Railway,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. The Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer (W), C&W Workshop,
Northern Railway, Alambagh, Lucknow.
3. The Dy. Chief Personnel Officer, C&W Worksho, Northern Railway,
Alambagh, Lucknow.
4. Bechalal- 31 A/C S/o Mohkam
5. Saqir Ahmad- 100 A/C S/o Himayat Ali
6. Sri Ram- 197 A/C S/o Shiv Balak
7. Muzaffar Ali 95 A/C S/o Shaukat Ali
8. R C Khare 282 A/C S/o TrilokiNath
9. Ram Lakhan 142 A/c S/o ChhoteyLal
10. Umesh Kumar 324 A/C S/o Ramji Lal
11. Abdul Aziz 287 A/C S/o Abdul Hamid
Page 1 of 8
CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00124/2010 Yogendra Prasad &Ors. VS. U.O.I. &Ors.
12. Ashwani Kumar Kohli aged about 55 years S/o Sri Mulk Raj R/o
House No. VG-59B, Near Langda Fatak (Gate) Alambagh, Lucknow
-226005
13. Radhey Lal aged about 59 years S/o Late Jagannath R/o House
No. 982/983, Sector-, L.D.A. Colony, Kanpur Road, Lucknow-
226005
14. Binda Prasad aged about 54 years son of Late Dularey, R/o House
No. 287/45, Kayam Khera, Aishbagh, Lucknow.
15. Nirmal Kumar Mishra aged about 55 years son of late Sripati
Mishra, R/o House No. 555Ka/0/56, Osho Nagar, Manak Nagar,
Lucknow.
16. Rakesh Kumar Dixit aged about 54 years son of V.N. Dixit, R/o
House No. 591/629/1, Utrathia, Raibarely Road, Lucknow.
17. Saranjeet Singh aged about 46 years son of Late H.M. Singh, R/o
House No. 69/1 Chander Nagar, Alambagh, Lucknow.
18. Devendra Singh aged about 52 years son of Ramsharan Singh,
permanent R/o House No. 119/501, Darshan Purwa Kanpur.
19. Indrajeet Yadav aged about 50 years son Janeshwar Singh, R/o
House No. Alambagh, Lucknow. 555/88, BholaKhera.
20. YunusJafari aged about years s/o Sri Liyakat Husain R/o
HouseNo. 391/115, Buniyad Bagh, Lucknow 226003.
21. A. M. Naqvi aged about years/o Sri R. H. Naqvi R/o House No.
337/178, Mansoor Nagar, Saadatgaj, Lucknow 226003
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta
Shri Syed Mohd. Arshad Rizvi
O R D E R (O R A L)
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to seniority, the applicantshavesought the following reliefs:
"1. To quash the impugned Seniority list dated 10.07.2009, rejection order dated 15.03.2010 and previous seniority list dated 31.07.2003 is being filed as Annexure A-1, A-1A and A-2 to the OA with all consequential benefits.
2. To prepare fresh seniority list while extending the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 128 of 2005 and 1734 of 2004 and make promotions on the basis of fresh seniority list.
3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.Page 2 of 8
CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00124/2010 Yogendra Prasad &Ors. VS. U.O.I. &Ors.
4. Cost of the present case, as the applicants have unnecessarily been dragged into litigations.
2.1 The factual matrix of this case goes through multiple rounds of litigation in the matter of fixation of seniority of applicants working in the Electrical shop of Carriage & Wagon (C&W) Workshop vis a vis the staff of Mechanical Department in AMV, C&W Workshop redeployed in the Electrical shop by the respondents.
2.2 The matter was first agitated by 7 applicants in OA No. 173 of 2004 challenging the seniority list dated 31.07.2003. The impugned seniority list was quashed by this Tribunal vide order dated 30.08.2004 and the respondents were directed to act in accordance with the instructions issued by the Railway Board vide letter No. E(NG)I-2000-SR- 6/23 dated 25.05.2004. As per the instructions dated 25.05.2004, the services rendered by the surplus staff prior to redeployment will not count for seniority and promotion in the absorbing unit. 2.3 Subsequently, the respondents brought out a seniority list dated 10.07.2009 which was challenged, along with the seniority list dated 31.07.2003, by 3 applicants in this OA. This Tribunal, vide order dated 19.07.2012, quashed the seniority lists dated 31.07.2003 and dated 10.07.2009 directing the respondents to act in accordance with Railway Board's instructions dated 25.05.2004. This Tribunal, while passing the order dated 19.07.2012, made it clear that the order would be subject to the final outcome of Writ Petition No. 400 (SB) of 2005 filed before Hon'ble High Court challenging this Tribunal's order dated 30.08.2004 in OA No. 173 of 2004.
2.4 The order dated 19.07.2012 of this Tribunal was challenged before Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition (SB) No. 1180 of 2013 on the ground that petitioners no. 6 to 13 therein were not party in the OA and so far as these petitioners were concerned, the order dated 19.07.2012 Page 3 of 8 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00124/2010 Yogendra Prasad &Ors. VS. U.O.I. &Ors. was passed ex parte. Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 23.08.2017, set aside this Tribunal's order dated 19.07.2012, restoring the instant OA, and directing this Tribunal to decide the same after private respondents file respective pleadings or after ensuring service of notice upon all the private respondents.
2.5 In consonance with the order dated 23.08.2017 of Hon'ble High Court, private respondents no. 12 to 21 were impleaded in this OA through MP No. 1291 of 2019 dated 04.07.2019 as necessary parties. 3.1 A supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of private respondents no. 12 and 15 through MP No. 659 of 2024 dated 14.03.2024 stating the seniority list was again revised by the respondents vide order dated 12.03.2019 which had been challenged before Hon'ble High Court in Writ-A No. 10760 of 2019 and an interim order dated 16.04.2019 was passed by Hon'ble High Court staying the operation of order dated 12.03.2019 issued by the respondents. It was further stated that Special Appeal Defective 838 of 2023 had been preferred before Hon'ble High Court challenging the order dated 16.04.2019. It was argued that as Writ-A 10760 of 2019 and Special Appeal Defective No. 838 of 2023 were pending before Hon'ble High Court for final adjudication and a number of employees have been promoted, retired or died and the seniority list revised, this Tribunal may dismiss the instant OA.
3.2 Referring to order dated 16.04.2019 of Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition (SS) No. 10760 of 2019, the following position is revealed:
"Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties have raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on account of the fact that the dispute pertaining to seniority between the parties is already pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 124 of 2010. It has been submitted that the impugned order dated 12th March, 2019 whereby the earlier seniority list has been revised during the pendency of the aforesaid original application can very well be Page 4 of 8 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00124/2010 Yogendra Prasad &Ors. VS. U.O.I. &Ors.
challenged in the aforesaid proceedings before Central Administrative Tribunal.
The learned counsel for the petitioner countering the aforesaid preliminary objection has drawn attention to the judgment and order dated 23rd August, 2017 passed in writ petition no. 1180 (S/B) of 2013 with the submission that earlier seniority list issued by the authorities was quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 19th July, 2012. The same was challenged before this Court in writ petition no. 1180 (S/B) of 2013 primarily on the ground that the respondents in the aforesaid proceedings were not served with notice prior to passing of the said judgment and order dated 19th July, 2012. Accordingly, the judgment of the Tribunal was set aside and the Tribunal itself was directed to decide the same after private respondents filed their respective pleadings or after ensuring service of notice upon all the private respondents. It has been submitted that in pursuance of the aforesaid directions of this Court, the petitioners of this writ petition, who are the said private respondents could not put in their appearance in the said proceedings before the Tribunal but the impugned order dated 12th March, 2019 has been said to be passed purportedly in compliance of the directions issued by this Court whereas no such directions have been issued to the authority concerned.
With regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition, it is an admitted fact that the proceedings pertaining to seniority dispute between the parties is pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal and therefore the impugned order can very well be challenged before the proceedings pending before the Tribunal itself but perusal of the impugned order reveals that the earlier seniority list has been revised by means of the impugned order allegedly in compliance of the directions said to have been issued by this Court on 23rd August, 2017 in writ petition no. 1180 (S/B) of 2013. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment makes it clear that no such directions have been issued at all to the authorities concerned for revision of the earlier seniority list and it was only the Central Administrative Tribunal which had been directed to decide the seniority dispute between the parties. On account of the aforesaid directions, prima facie it does not appear that the impugned order could have been issued and is as such without jurisdiction apart from creating unnecessary confusion during pendency of litigation before the Tribunal. In view of the said fact, I hold the petition to be maintainable before this Court.
In view of the above, four weeks' time is granted to the opposite parties to file their response to the writ petition. In the meantime, the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 12th march, 2019 shall remain stayed. However it is made clear that the proceedings before the Tribunal shall continue in terms of the judgment and order dated 23rd August, 2017 and same may be decided expeditiously, if possible within a period of eight weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced ignoring the impugned order dated 12th March, 2019. The Page 5 of 8 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00124/2010 Yogendra Prasad &Ors. VS. U.O.I. &Ors.
petitioners of this writ petition are directed to ensure their attendance before the Tribunal in the aforesaid proceedings of the Original Application No. 124 of 2010 within the next week."
(emphasis supplied) 3.3 In view of the explicit directions of Hon'ble High Court highlighted above, the plea taken by respondents no. 12 and 15 vide supplementary affidavit dated 14.03.2024 for dismissal of this OA is found to be unsustainable and is rejected accordingly.
4.1 During the hearing learned counsel for private respondents 15, 18 and 21, Shri Syed Mohd. Arshad Rizvi was asked whether he has any submission to make on the applicability of Railway Board's instructions dated 25.05.2004 in preparation of the seniority list by the respondents. 4.2 For the sake of clarity, instructions dated 25.05.2004 of the Railway Board are extracted below:
"Sub: Assignment of seniority to redeployed surplus staff. In terms of instructions contained in this Ministry's letter No.E(NG)II- 84/RE1/10 dated 21-04-1989 and reiterated in their letter No.E(MPP)/99/1/75 dated 28-11-2000 seniority of surplus staff absorbed in other units/departments is determined as follows:-
(i) When only a small number of staff is being rendered surplus and they have to be absorbed in various units of other departments against vacancies of duly sanctioned posts, they can be suitably adjusted in those units with their full seniority and their seniority merged in the respective units.
(ii) When a large number of staff is being rendered surplus and they are absorbed in new units, they should be given their full seniority but kept in a separate block against special supernumerary posts in consultation with the Unions so that they seek promotion separately as per percentage applicable to them, in their original cadre and the existing staff in the absorbing unit are also not adversely affected.
2. CAT/Jodhpur in their recent judgment dated 24-12-1999 in OA No. 165/98 Shri Surinder Prakash and others vs. Union of India and others and another dated 05-01-2000 in OA. No. 489/94 Indian Railways Ticket Checking Staff Association and another Vs. Union of India and Ors. have allowed the applications filed by the Railway employees against the procedure of allowing full seniority to surplus staff on their absorption to another cadre. These judgments were based upon the judgment dated 29- 07-1988 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No.2530/81 and 1730/87 in the case of South Eastern Railway and Ors. Vs. Ram Narain Singh and Ors. and also the judgement dated 18-11-1980 in the case of Ramakant Chaturvedi and Ors. Vs. Divisional Supdt., Northern Railway, Moradabad Page 6 of 8 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00124/2010 Yogendra Prasad &Ors. VS. U.O.I. &Ors.
and Ors. 1980 (Supp) (SCC) 621. A copy of Apex Court's judgement dated 18-11-1980 was circulated to the Railways vide this Ministry's letter No.E (NG)I-80/PM1/292 dated 16-03-1981 for information and guidance. In the civil side matters also, Hon'ble Supreme Court have given the directions that surplus staff absorbed in other cadres/departments will not count the service rendered by them in the parent cadre/department for the purpose of seniority and promotion.
3. In light of the above, the question of review of instructions regulating seniority of surplus staff on their absorption in the new cadre/Deptt. has been considered by this Ministry. The views of both the recognised Federations have also been obtained and taken into account. It has been decided that the service rendered by the surplus staff prior to redeployment will not count for seniority and promotion in the absorbing unit. To this extent Item (i) of para 1 above stand modified. Other stipulations in the existing instructions including the one referred to in (ii) of para 1 above will remain unaltered. 3.1 Indian Railway Establishment Manual, 1989 may also be amended as per Advance Correction Slip No 159 enclosed.
3.2 Past cases decided otherwise will not be reopened."
(emphasis supplied) 4.3 Learned counsel for the private respondents no. 15, 18 and 21, Shri Rizvi stated that in the interest of justice, the private respondents may be allowed to prefer a representation in regard to the impugned seniority lists to the official respondents and the official respondents directed to decide the same. Learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Praveen Kumar, opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents.
5.1 Having considered the rival contentions, we dispose of this OA with following directions:
(i) The impugned seniority lists dated 31.07.2003 and dated 10.07.2009 are quashed and set aside.
(ii) The private respondents impleaded later in terms of Hon'ble High Court's order dated 23.08.2017 shall have the opportunity to make a representation to the official respondents in regard to their seniority within two weeks of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(iii) The officials respondents shall consider and decide the said representation within one month of its submission by way of a Page 7 of 8 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00124/2010 Yogendra Prasad &Ors. VS. U.O.I. &Ors.
reasoned and speaking order in terms of the Railway Board's instructions dated 25.05.2004.
(iv) The official respondents shall finalize the seniority list in accordance with the Railway Board's instructions dated 25.05.2004 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
5.2 Pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of.
5.3 The Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
vidya
Page 8 of 8