Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Mam Chand vs Union Of India Through on 8 November, 2008
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A. NO. 277/2008 New Delhi, this the 8th day of September, 2008 HONBLE MR. SHANKER RAJU, MEMBER (J) HONBLE DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY, MEMBER (A) Shri Mam Chand, S/o Shri Ram Swaroop, Under ADEN N. Rly, Meerut Cantt. Applicant (By Advocate:Shri B.S. Mainee) Versus 1. Union of India through: The General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi 2. Divl. Railway Manager, Northern Railway, State Entry Road, New Delhi 3. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, State Entry Road, New Delhi Respondents (By Advocate: Shri R.L. Dhawan) O R D E R By Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A):
The Applicant, a substantive Group-D post holder, is an ad-hoc Truck Driver (Group-III) under the Ministry of Railways since 1983. His earlier O.A. No.388/2007 was disposed off vide Tribunals order dated 28.2.2007 with the following directions:-
Considering these facts & circumstances, we are of the view that the respondents should be directed to consider the case of the applicant on merits and in accordance with law and eligibility conditions for granting the benefits of ACP Scheme and inclusion of his name in the seniority list according to his seniority position as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. In compliance, the respondents have passed a speaking order dated 3.10.2007, allowing the applicant the benefit of financial upgradation in the substantive grade of Gangman w.e.f. 1.10.1999 vide order dated 29.9.2007. The order further states that as he had been a Truck Driver purely on ad-hoc basis, financial upgradation therein would not be admissible. Also that he would continue to be in the seniority list of Gangmen as per rule.
The Contempt Petition No.344/2007 filed in this O.A. was closed with liberty to the applicant to challenge the order as legally permissible if he still felt aggrieved.
2. Filed against the above background, the present OA challenges the aforesaid impugned order of 3.10.2007 (A-1) and prays for a direction to regularize his services as a Driver (Grade-III) from the year 1982 and inclusion of his name in the Drivers seniority list.
3. The facts briefly are that the applicant had been appointed as a Gangman, a Group D post, on 5.8.1982. Subsequently, however, he has been working as a Truck Driver in Group-III in the pay scale of Rs.260-400) since 6.8.1983. While the applicants contention is that he was promoted against this post after passing trade test (para 4.6 (ii)), this is rebutted by the respondents with the averment that his utilization as a Truck Driver was not by way of a proper sanction by the competent authority; rather it was purely on local ad-hoc arrangement by the Subordinate Officer (para 4.1 of the counter). However, the fact that the applicant has been working continuously as a Truck Driver ever since, is not disputed. Despite several representations to the authorities, there was no redressal of his grievance for regularization as a Driver. The OA mentions of several such representations in a series, the last one being dated 1.11.2006.
4. Shri B.S. Mainee, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would mainly emphasize about the services of the applicant as a Driver not having been regularized despite his working as such for a long period of nearly 25 years. He would also mention that in similar cases, the regularization had already taken place. Reference would be made to orders from the Railways on the subject of such regularization (letter No. E(NG)1-2004/CFP/18 dated 6.12.2004 from the Railway Board; and letter No.961-E/027/C/EIIBII dated 12.3.2004 from the Northern Railway Headquarters Office). A reference would also be made to the decision of this Tribunal in a similar case (O.A No.826/2005 Shri More Singh vs. Union of India). It would be argued that despite these orders and the direction in More Singhs case, the services of the applicant have not been regularized as a Driver and it has been wrongly rejected vide the impugned order. The learned counsel would also draw our attention to the directions of Railway Board vide their Circular No.E(NG) I 99/PMI/28 dated 31.12.1999 to argue that ad-hoc promotees should not continue as such for a long time.
5. On behalf of the respondents, Shri R.L. Dhawan, learned counsel, would submit that the applicant holds only a Group D post of Gangman substantively and as per para 189 of the IREM Vol.I (Chapter-I), the next promotion would only be admissible to the next higher grade of a Mate. While referring to the judgments of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors vs. Umadevi & Ors.[2006 (4) SCALE 197[ etc. etc, he would contend that ad-hoc promotion does not give any right to regularization.
The learned counsel would submit that the post of Vehicle Driver is filled by Divisional Railway Managers Office by calling of options from all eligible staff who have completed three years of service and possess a valid driving licence (counter para-3). Further, subsequent to the direction of the Tribunal in More Singhs case, applications were invited for filling up the posts of Vehicle Drivers from among Group D staff. After holding trade tests, steps had been taken for filling the posts. In this regard, the learned counsel would produce a copy of letter No.361-E/292/Pt.I/V.Dvr dated 10.11.2006 from the Northern Railway Divisional Office, New Delhi. He would also submit that the services of Shri More Singh had been accordingly regularized as Vehicle Driver in the panel of 22.5.2007 without giving benefit of regularization from any retrospective effect. The applicant did not avail the opportunity by applying against the above Notification, otherwise his services would also have been regularized as a Driver w.e.f. 22.5.2007 (counter para 4.10).
6. In the light of the foregoing reasons, it only seems fair that the applicant is provided another opportunity for regularization as has been accorded to several others vide their letter of 10.11.2006. This would, of course, be subject to availability of vacancies. The respondents are accordingly directed to hold another Trade Test for the purpose and consider regularization of the services of the applicant in the post of Vehicle Driver (Grade-III) as has been done in other similar cases. This may be done within a period of three months. Needless to say that regularization would also entail inclusion of his name in the seniority list of Drivers.
7. With this the O.A. is disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Veena Chhotray) (Shanker Raju) Member (A) Member (J) /pkr/