Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
K Maheswar vs M/O Railways on 29 July, 2019
1 OA 021/121/2019
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH: HYDERABAD
Original Application No.21/121/2019
Reserved on: 23.07.2019
Pronounced on: 29.07.2019
Between:
K. Maheswar, S/o. K.L.N. Reddy,
Aged about 61 years, Occ: Retd. SS/SC,
O/o. DRM/P/HYB (Group C),
R/o. Flat No. 101, Crescent Krishna Elite Apts,
Defence Colony, Sainikpuri, Hyderabad.
... Applicant
And
1. Union of India, Rep. by
General Manager,
South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam,
3rd Floor, Secunderabad - 500 025.
2. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer,
S. C. Railway, Hyderabad Division, Secunderabad.
... Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant ... Mr. K.S.P. Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents ... Mrs. Vijaya Sagi, SC for Rlys
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Member (Admn.)
ORDER
{As per Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Member (Admn.) }
2. OA is filed for not awarding Accident Free Service (AFS) Award.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant joined as Traffic Apprentice in 1982 and retired on 31.3.2017 as Station Superintendent from the respondents organisation. All throughout his career he has held safety posts and rendered an accident free service for 34 years. Therefore he is eligible for Accident free service award as per Railway Board Order 2 OA 021/121/2019 dated 6.7.1998. Applicant represented for the same on 12.9.2017 and 14.6.2018 but of no avail and hence the OA.
4. The contentions of the applicant are that the respondents have not acted as per the Board orders though he has represented on a couple of occasions. Principles of Natural Justice have been violated.
5. Respondents resist the contentions of the applicant by stating that the applicant has suffered three penalties namely censure in 1988, withholding of increment for 12 months in 2007 and once again censure in 2013. As per Railway Board Order dated 6.7.1998 and employee who suffers 3 or more penalties are ineligible for AFS award. Hence the applicant was not granted the AFS award.
6. Heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings on record. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that penalties imposed in respect of accidents have to be considered and not others whereas Ld. counsel for the respondents has submitted that the overall career performance has to be assessed and not just pertaining to accidents.
7. I) The dispute raised can be resolved by referring to the Railway Board order dated 6.7.1998, wherein the relevant paras read as under:
"It is now decided that the entire length of service of the staff should be viewed in totality for the purpose of granting of this award. The quantum of award will vary, depending on the total length of service in all the eligible categories combined.
4. While assessing suitability of staff for grant of award any staff who has been punished with a major penalty either in 3 OA 021/121/2019 an accident case or in a case related to violation of safety rules and safety norms will be debarred permanently.
5. The underlying principle is that a generally careless, negligent, in disciplined or recalcitrant worker should not be considered for an award even if he has an accident free record. "
II) The Ld. counsel for the applicant was emphasising on para 4 to seek the award since the applicant was not awarded any penalties on grounds of any accidents. However, a circular cannot be read in isolation but the entire content has to be reckoned. The circular clarifies that the total length of service has to be viewed in its entirety to grant the award. Applicant has suffered 3 penalties and hence his service in its entirety cannot be assumed to be clean for the purpose of declaring the applicant eligible for the AFS award. Service is an embracing word and includes all activities which ought to be performed by the applicant as Railway servant. It does not mean that one can render accident free service but default in discharging other responsibilities assigned. This has not been envisaged in the memo under reference for granting AFS. Hence the action of the respondents is as per rule. Therefore, intervention of the Tribunal on behalf of the applicant is not called for. OA thus lacks merit. Hence, OA, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(B.V. SUDHAKAR) MEMBER (ADMN.) Dated, the 29th day of July, 2019 evr