Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Dharmendra Kumar Singh vs General Manager, N E Rly on 17 March, 2023
(Reserved on 14.03.2023)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Pronounced on 17th day of March 2023
Hon'ble Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
Original Application No. 425 of 2021
Dharmendra Kumar Singh, aged about 36 years, S/o Sri Ram
Suresh Singh, R/o Village Gopipuram, Post Halduchand Behind
Children Academy Nainital, Permanent address Lalitakunj, Tuti
Jharna Road, Post Bahraich Nagar Sandai, District Ramgarh
(Jharkhand).
. . .Applicant
Advocate for the applicant : Shri Vinod Kumar
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern
Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. Divisional Railway Manager (P), North Eastern Railway, Izzat
Nagar, Bareilly.
3. Senior Divisional Personal Officer, North Eastern Railway,
Izzat Nagar, Bareilly.
. . .Respondents
Advocate for the respondents: Shri Vijay Kumar Singh
ORDER
By way of the instant original application filed under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the applicant has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 07/08.12.2020 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure A-1) and to issue a direction to the respondents to calculate and make payment of stipend to the applicant for the period 22.02.2009 to 19.08.2013 alongwith market rate interest on the delayed payment.
2
2. The facts of the case of the applicant, in brief, are that pursuant to the notification No. R.R.B/GKP/01/38/2007 issued by the respondents notifying 508 vacancies to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot, the applicant had applied and undergone in the selection process and has finally selected to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot. Thereafter, vide letter dated 28.05.2008, the respondents sent the applicant for initial training in which his name was mentioned at Sl. 69. Thereafter, the respondents declared the result of the aforesaid training in which the applicant was declared successful and his name found place at Sl. No. 16 in the list. On the basis of the aforesaid result, the candidates were waiting for their posting but in the meantime, vigilance department had informed that requisite document verification of 147 candidates have been completed through GEQD and remaining verification of about 13 candidates are going on. Later on vigilance also verified and cleared document verification of 9 candidates but kept pending remaining 4 candidates for verification without assigning any reason. It is stated that since the aforesaid verification was not cleared by the GEQD within a reasonable period and no any reason had been assigned to the respective candidates, the applicant filed OA No. 345/2011 before Patna Bench of this Tribunal which was disposed off vide order dated 11.09.2012 with direction to the respondents to finalize matter and issue posting order with all consequential benefits including seniority at par with junior within three months. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the posting of the applicant was made on 19.08.2013 and as such, he was kept under waiting since 22.02.2009 till 19.08.2013 and nothing has been pointed out by 3 the vigilance department during document verification through GEQD. Thus, it is stated that in view of the Railway Board Circular dated 17.01.1969 (page 57 of OA), the applicant is entitled for payment of stipend during the waiting period. The relevant para of the said circular reads as under: -
"19. Subject: Regularization of the period between the date of expiry of the period of apprenticeship and the date of posting.
No. E(NG)II AG1/4 dated 17.1.1969 ......
In case where there is delay in holding examinations, valuation of answer books, issue of office orders etc. owing to administrative reasons, the period intervening the date of completion of the apprenticeship / training period and the date of posting against working posts should be treated as extended period of training / apprenticeship and the apprentices should be paid stipend for that period. In no case an apprentice should be absorbed against working post with retrospective effect in future."
3. Further to this, in the OA, the applicant has mentioned about his experience with the department for granting him benefits for which he has to approach the Tribunal. It is further stated that the applicant has got other benefits but this particular case is only regarding remuneration for the period between his training and actual date of joining the duty i.e. between 22.02.2009 to 19.08.2013. The applicant also pointed out that the impugned order dated 08.12.2020 wherein, in the speaking order at para 2, it is inter alia other things mentioned that "...वत्ृ तिका के भुगिान के सम्बंध में 4 माननीय केन्द्रीय प्रशासन प्राधधकरण का कोई आदे श नहीं है । श्री धमेन्द्र कुमार ससंह दद0 22.02.2009 से 19.08.2013 िक प्रसशऺण में नहीं रहे है और न िो कोई कायय रे ऱ सेवा से सम्बत्न्द्धि सऱया गया है कक इन्द्हें इस अवधध का वत्ृ तिका /वेिन का भग ु िान ककया जाना ननयमानुकूऱ नही है । ". So, the request of the applicant for stipend during the intervening period as per the circular dated 17.01.1969, (quoted supra) was not considered by the department and aggrieved by the same, the applicant has filed the instant original application.
4. The respondents have filed counter reply in which they concur with the basic facts as stated by the applicant in the OA. but they say that as in the instant OA, the applicant is claiming stipend from 22.02.2009 to 19.08.2013 (4 years 5 months 17 days) by treating the aforesaid period as waiting period / extension of training period and in this regard the applicant has relied upon the circular having no No. E(NG)II AG1/4 dated 17.1.1969 issued by the Railway Board, but they mentioned that during the aforesaid period neither the applicant was under training nor any work of railways has been taken by him. They further emphasized that the applicant was kept under waiting for his posting. The reason behind delay in posting of the applicant is that a panel having 160 Assistant Loco Pilot was formed out of which 147 candidates were cleared by GEQD but due to some irregularities in questioned documents of 13 candidates, the applicant was stopped from joining by the department. Hence it cannot be said that the applicant was under waiting for his posting, therefore, the payment of stipend is not tenable in the eyes of law. It is also stated that the 5 applicant has already been given job and other consequential benefits, as earlier directed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal. Hence, they requests that the OA should be dismissed as there is no case for the applicant.
5. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the contents of OA.
6. The case came up for final hearing on 14.03.2023. Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents were present and heard.
7. I have gone carefully through the record and examined rival contentions. The basic facts of the case that the applicant was selected and sent for training and after completion of training on 22.09.2009, he was not given posting because his documents were still under verification by the GEQD and it was for quite long time remained pending and only after judicial intervention by the Patna Bench of this Tribunal the applicant was given posting on 19.08.2013 with all consequential benefits. The letter dated 17.01.1969 issued by the Railway Board (at page 57-58 of OA) is also not disputed. The respondents have not been able to show why this particular letter dated 17.01.1969 should not be applicable in the case of the applicant. Although its wordings are as follows: -
6
"19. Subject: Regularization of the period between the date of expiry of the period of apprenticeship and the date of posting.
No. E(NG)II AG1/4 dated 17.1.1969 ......
In case where there is delay in holding examinations, valuation of answer books, issue of office orders etc. owing to administrative reasons, the period intervening the date of completion of the apprenticeship / training period and the date of posting against working posts should be treated as extended period of training / apprenticeship and the apprentices should be paid stipend for that period. In no case an apprentice should be absorbed against working post with retrospective effect in future."
8. From simple reading of the above circular, it comes out that if due to delay in holding examinations, valuation of answer books, issue of office orders etc. owing to administrative reasons there is delay in giving posting, the period of intervening waiting time from the date of completion of apprenticeship / training and date of posting should be treated as extended period of training / apprenticeship and the apprentices should be paid stipend for that period. If such circular exists then there is a merit in the case of the applicant in requesting to grant him the benefit of it as without his fault and clearly for administrative reasons of verifying certain documents by GEQD, the applicant cannot be given posting until 19.08.2013 whereas training was completed on 22.02.2009 and he was selected through a due process of selection, which is not questioned.
7
9. In view of the above facts, I am of the considered opinion that this is a case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondents. Hence, the original application is allowed and the order dated 07/08.12.2020 (Annexure A-1) is set aside to the extent that the applicant shall be given stipend during the period of waiting between 22.02.2009 to 19.08.2013 with 6% interest within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
10. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Sanjiv Kumar) Member (A) Anand...