Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Agany Kumar vs South Central Railway on 18 April, 2023
OA No.20/303/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH :: AT HYDERABAD
OA No.20/00303/2022
Reserved on: 17.02.2023
Pronounced on: 18.04.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member
Between:
1. Agany Kumar, S/o Ashok Kumar,
Aged 32 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods) (Group C),
South Central Railway, Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
2. Yugesh Kumar, S/o Anil Kumar Choudhary,
Aged 32 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Guntakal Division,
Guntakal.
3. Rajesh Kumar, S/o Bhagavati Prasad,
Aged 38 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Guntakal Division,
Guntakal.
4. Bimal Kumar Rajak, S/o Ram Chandra Rajak,
Aged 44 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Gooty Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
5. Vimal Bhargav, S/o Girdhar Prasad,
Aged 31 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Guntakal Division,
Guntakal.
6. Md. Isha Ansari, S/o Md. Ahamad Ali,
Aged 29 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Gooty Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
7. Md. Sohail, S/o Late Md. Alauddin,
Aged 36 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Dharmavaram Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
8. Abinash Kalor, S/o Late Sri Bangali Ram,
Aged 42 Years, Occ: Senior Assistant Loco Pilot,
South Central Railway, Dharmavaram Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
9. Gopal Kumar, S/o Sudhir Roy,
Aged 34 Years, Occ: Senior Assistant Loco Pilot,
South Central Railway, Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
10. Manoj Kumar, S/o Feku Singh,
Aged 34 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Gooty Depot,
Page 1 of 16
OA No.20/303/2022
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
11. Amit Kumar, S/o Inderdeo Prasad,
Aged 40 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Gooty Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
12. Amit Kumar, S/o P.N. Mahto,
Aged 35 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Gooty Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
13. Bijendra Kumar, S/o Deonarayan Prasad Yadav,
Aged 41 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Gooty Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
14. Deonandan Mandal, S/o Banawari Lal,
Aged 36 Years, Occ: Senior Assistant Loco Pilot,
South Central Railway, Gooty Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
15. Pavan Kumar Meena, S/o Bharat Lal Meena,
Aged 34 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Gooty Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
16. Arun Kumar Sharma, S/o Binay Sharma,
Aged 35 Years, Occ: Senior Assistant Loco Pilot,
South Central Railway, Gooty Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
17. Mukesh Singh Yadav, S/o Suresh Yadav,
Aged 37 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Gooty Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
18. Amit Kumar, S/o Suresh Prasad Singh,
Aged 34 Years, Occ: Senior Assistant Loco Pilot,
South Central Railway, Gooty Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
19. Amit Anand, S/o Mahendra Prasad,
Aged 32 Years, Occ: Senior Assistant Loco Pilot,
South Central Railway, Gooty Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
20. Sanjeev Kumar, S/o Bishun Sah,
Aged 38 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Gooty Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
21. Durgesh Kumar, S/o Rajendra Prasad Singh,
Aged 37 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Gooty Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
22. Kammaiayya, S/o Dharma Rao,
Aged 41 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
Page 2 of 16
OA No.20/303/2022
South Central Railway, Raichur Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
23. Sanjit Saurabh, S/o Late Bhupendra Narayan Sinha,
Aged 37 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Raichur Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
24. Baga Tirkey, S/o Late Ram Oraon,
Aged 44 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Raichur Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
25. Umashankar Kumar, S/o Suresh Prasad,
Aged 34 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Raichur Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
26. Gautam Kumar, S/o lakshman Prasad Chaurasia,
Aged 36 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Raichur Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
27. Vikash Prasad, S/o Baleshwar Prasad,
Aged 30 Years, Occ: Senior Assistant Loco Pilot,
South Central Railway, Raichur Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
28. Abhaya Kumar, S/o Ramswarup Prasad,
Aged 34 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Raichur Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
29. Mritunjay Kumar, S/o Rajeshwar Prasad,
Aged 34 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Raichur Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
30. Deenanath Kumar, S/o Late Shyam Ji Prasad,
Aged 38 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Raichur Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
31. Vakil Kumar, S/o Satya Narayan Sah,
Aged 32 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Raichur Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
32. Rajesh Kumar Meena, S/o Jati Ram Meena,
Aged 37 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Raichur Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
33. Mukesh Kumar Janko, S/o Late Lasa Janko,
Aged 39 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Raichur Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
34. Satyendra Yahake, S/o Raghunath Prasad,
Page 3 of 16
OA No.20/303/2022
Aged 40 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Raichur Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
35. Ashutosh Kumar, S/o Rajendra Prasad Mehta,
Aged 33 Years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
South Central Railway, Raichur Depot,
Guntakal Division, Guntakal.
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. KRKV Prasad)
Vs.
1. Union of India Rep. by
The General Manager,
South Central Railway,
Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.
2. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer,
South Central Railway,
Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager,
South Central Railway,
Guntakal division, Guntakal.
4. The Divisional Railway Manager,
East Central Railway, Mughalsarai Division
(Pt. Deendayal Upadyaya Division),
Mughalsarai, Uttar Pradesh State.
5. The Divisional Railway Manager,
East Central Railway, Danapur Division
Danapur, Bihar State
6. The Divisional Railway Manager,
East Central Railway, Sonpur Division
Sonpur, Bihar State
7. The Divisional Railway Manager,
East Central Railway, Samastipur Division
Samastipur, Bihar State.
8. The Divisional Railway Manager,
East Central Railway, Dhanbad Division
Dhanbad, Jharkhand State
9. The Divisional Railway Manager,
East Railway, Malda Division, West Bengal State.
10. The Divisional Railway Manager,
South Eastern Railway, Ranchi Division
Ranchi, Jharkhand State.
11. The Divisional Railway Manager,
North Central Railway, Allahabad Division,
Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh State.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs. K. Rajitha, Sr. PC for CG)
Page 4 of 16
OA No.20/303/2022
ORDER
(As per Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member) The applicants filed this OA seeking the following relief:
"..to call for the records pertaining to letter No. SCR/P- HQ/mech/531/TP/RNG/ALP, dated 17.03.2022 and set aside and quash the same; and direct the respondent Guntakal Division to relieve the applicants forthwith as per the Divisional priority in pursuance of the Inter Railway Request Transfer and grant all consequential benefits to the applicants.."
2. Facts of the case that the applicants, who are working as Asst. Loco Pilot (ALP), Senior Asst. Loco Pilot (Sr. ALP) and Loco Pilot (Goods) in Guntakal Division of SC Railway, applied for Inter-Railway Request Transfer (for short "IRRT") to different Divisions of different Zones, in terms of the policy on the subject, agreeing to join in the initial recruitment grade of Asst. Loco Pilot on bottom seniority in the new division/ zone. The applications of the applicants and of others were arranged in the divisional priority of Guntakal division taking the date of application as basis and accordingly, a list was published on 04.11.2019, wherein the names of the applicants figure between Sl. No.s. 76 and 460. The 2nd respondent released action plan vide letter dt. 12.02.2020 for relieving the ALPs on IRRT in a staggered manner in tandem with induction of fresh candidates. In respect of 350 employees, who have applied for IRRT from Guntakal Division, the Divisions of other Zones conveyed their No Objection to receive the running staff on IRRT in their respective Divisions. Accordingly, 18 LP (Goods) were relieved. Thereafter, another 99 running staff were relieved vide order dt. 24.08.2020. Further, on 11.09.2020, a list of 101 running staff was prepared for relieving them and some of them were relieved and they were all below the applicants in the priority list and 29 staff were Page 5 of 16 OA No.20/303/2022 relieved after receiving revalidation of NOC from Dhanabad Division. Another list of 68 running staff, whose applications were also subsequent to that of the applicants, was released. Sr. DPO, Guntakal vide letter dt. 16.12.2020 conveying to the Sr. DEE/ Traction, Guntakal that 25 employees are being relieved on their own risk either to join in the accepting Division or in case of refusal, to come back. Further, the 2nd respondent i.e. PCPO, SC Railway vide letter dt. 10.03.2021 advised the Guntakal division to relieve 42 LPs and 92 ALPs, as NOC is available for them and Guntakal Division relieved some of them. It is the case of the applicants that though they had submitted their applications much prior to number of others who have already been relieved, NOCs were delayed by the accepting Divisions in their case. NOCs were granted to them during 2018 onwards and the same were revalidated, but the accepting divisions did not agree to take them due to pandemic situation.
3. While so, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned letter dt. 17.03.2022 to consider Inter Divisional Request Transfer (IDRT) within SC Railway zone, permitting the newly recruited running cadre employees working in Guntakal Division to go to other Divisions to the extent shown therein. If this is allowed, cadre strength in Guntakal Division will come down, which would affect chances of relieving the applicants to join other Railway zones to their detriment. It is further submitted by the applicants that their applications for IRRT were processed by both the Zonal Railways in terms of Rule 226 of the IREC. Even the 1 st respondent issued a Serial Circular dt. 06.10.2005, circulated by SC Railway vide SC No. 175/2005, to expeditiously relieve the employees who are under the orders of IRRT, Page 6 of 16 OA No.20/303/2022 as delay in joining at the accepting division/ zone would affect their career prospects.
4. It is contended by the applicants that there are several hurdles vis-à- vis IRRT like delay in getting NOC, lapse of NOC, non-acceptance of relieved employees by the new division, etc. Therefore, if the impugned letter dt. 17.03.2022 is put into operation, it would cause hardship to the applicants, who are entitled to be relieved as per divisional priority. The overriding priority given to the newly joined ALPs shows patent illegality. It is further contended by the applicants that since they are willing to join the bottom most grade with loss of seniority in the new Division/ Railways, they are entitled for priority treatment. The impugned order dt. 17.03.2022 favouring new recruits would vitiate the provisions relating to IRRT and therefore, the same is illegal and arbitrary. Further, the issue relating to IRRT fell for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court at Hyderabad in a batch of writ petitions, filed by the Railways and the Hon'ble court, after considering the statutory provision of Rule 226 of IREC and also the Circular dt. 02.11.2005, directed the Railways to relieve the employees. Even Tribunal also disposed of OAs filed by similarly situated employees citing the Hon'ble High Court orders.
5. At the time of admission, this Tribunal passed interim order on 29.04.2022 that status quo shall be maintained in regard to the impugned order dt. 17.03.2022, with a further direction that, if NOC is expired, it can be extended for another six months in respect of the applicants and the said interim order has been extended from time to time.
Page 7 of 16
OA No.20/303/2022
6. The OA has been contested by the respondents by filing reply statement. They state that two different priority lists are being maintained in the Divisions - one for IRRT and the other for IDRT within the SC Railway Zone. In Guntakal Division, applications of the applicants and others were arranged in the order of priority and a priority list was published on 4.11.2019, consisting of 595 IRRT and 17 IDRT, in which, the names of the applicants are arranged at Sl. No. 76 to 460 in the priority list dt. 04.11.2019 and NOCs for all the applicants except applicant No. 15, 32 have been received. The respondents state that transfers orders were issued to relieve the Loco Running Staff on IRRT on 22.07.2020, 24.08.2020, 11.09.2020, 25.09.2020 & 13.11.2020 in favour of 19, 99, 101, 68 & 4 employees respectively. After issuing orders for relieving the staff on IRRT, some of the accepting zonal railways/ Divisions, who had earlier given NOC, have conveyed for non-relieving of staff on IRRT. Hence, Guntakal division relieved staff on IRRT to only those Divisions/ Zones where there is no objection to accommodate the candidates and where there are no acceptance letters, the concerned division/ zones have been requested to issue acceptance letters to accommodate the candidates and on receipt of such acceptance, the employees were relieved on IRRT in the order of priority. On frequent representations from the running staff who, though were in the priority list, but could not be relieved due to non- acceptance letter issued by the accepting Railways, the competent authority has reviewed the position and indicated order to relieve 25 Loco Running Staff in the order of priority at this own risk subject to submission of affidavit stating that they will be relieved on their own requests and risk and Page 8 of 16 OA No.20/303/2022 in case of their non-acceptance by the accepting Division/ Railway, after being relieved from Guntakal Division, the period of stay will be treated as own leave/ extraordinary leave and they shall report back to Guntakal Division. Only 62 Loco Running Staff have been issued with orders, but they could not be relieved due to non-receipt of acceptance letter from the accepting division. The employees were relieved strictly in the order of divisional priority based on the NOC and the consent from the accepting Division/ Zone. It is stated by the respondents that more than 200 Loco Running Staff have been relieved from Guntakal Division during 2020.
7. It is contended by the respondents that as per Para 226 of the IREC, ordinarily, a railway servant shall be employed throughout his service on the railway to which he is posted on first appointment and shall have no claim as a right for transfer to another railway, however, in the exigencies of service, he can be transferred to any other department or railway. As per Serial Circular No. 175/2005, IRRT/IDRT are considered in recruitment grade on bottom seniority subject to fulfilling the condition of qualification required for the post to which the transfer is sought. It is argued by the respondents that the transfer from one Railway/ Division to the other is not a matter of right. Courts cannot substitute its own decisions in the matter of transfer. It is further stated by the respondents that the Headquarters vide letter dt. 17.03.2022 advised divisions to consider the IDRT applications to the extent specified therein (for Guntakal division 154nos.) and pursuant thereto, the Sr. DEE/ Tr/GTL forwarded 330 IDRT applications to Personnel Branch, GTL Division and the said applications are under scrutiny. In obedience of the interim order this Tribunal, status quo is Page 9 of 16 OA No.20/303/2022 maintained vis-à-vis the impugned order dt. 17.03.2022. NOCs have been received in favour of some of the employees who have filed the OA after issuing the above orders and therefore, their names were not included in the above said office orders.
8. Applicants filed rejoinder stating that the applicant at Sl. No. 15 has been given NOC. That, merely because two priority lists are maintained, it does not give overriding priority to the new recruits who seek IDRT, without relieving seniors who, being in the higher grade, sought IRRT to join in the lowest grade by losing seniority. They further state that SC division is adhering to the schedule given for IRRT, whereas the Guntakal Division is not. It is incumbent on the part of the respondent Railways to see that the priority list for IRRT is strictly followed by ensuring receipt of NOC. It is the responsibility of the both relieving and accepting Railways to see that the rules/ instruction on IRRT are followed. Guntakal Division is saying on one hand that there is manpower problem, on the other hand, it is prepared to relieve the freshers from Guntakal Division to other divisions. The respondents are trying to wash off their hands saying that NOC is not available for certain employees. Different methods are being followed for relieving the staff on IRRT making the priority list redundant. The respondents have resorted to relieving employees out of turn vide order dt. 13.11.2020, without any sanctity to the priority list. It is further stated by the applicants that Rule 226 of IREC does not permit the policy to be followed selectively and it has to be followed without any discretion or discrimination. Even the HQ letter only advised to consider requests of IDRT, but never said to give priority to IDRT over IRRT. SC Division has Page 10 of 16 OA No.20/303/2022 relieved 36 and 13 candidates on IRRT vide orders dt. 07.06.2022 and 10.08.2022 respectively and NED Division vide order dt. 01.04.2022 relieved 22 candidates on IRRT whereas the GTL division is proposing to transfer 55 employees to SC Division on request transfer overriding the pending IRRT request. Out of 151 candidates allotted to the GTL division, 123 have already completed training and waiting for posting and thus, there is substantial improvement in the cadre position. As per the SC 175/2005, as the requests for IRRT on bottom seniority are made on ground of hardship, such requests may not be withheld and if such requests are withheld in the exigency of service on account of vacancies, a time bound programme should be chalked out to fill up the vacancies by direct recruitment or promotion, as the case may be. Applicants also stated that the applicants 15 & 32 have also got NOCs.
9. The respondents filed additional reply statement, wherein they have stated that HQ vide letter dt. 20.10.2022 approved to relieve 50 IRRTs from GTL division with valid NOCs as per priority list. It is also further stated therein that, if there is no valid NOCs from the IRRT accepting Division, the employees may be relieved duly taking/ obtaining affidavit from the concerned employee so as to avoid any further legal complications. In pursuance of the same, letters have been sent to accepting Divisions/ Railways for revalidation of NOCs and as on the date of filing reply i.e. December 2022, in 18 cases, revalidation of NOCs has been received. It is further stated that, 8 applicants herein are included in the list of 50 staff of GTL division who are proposed to be relieved on IRRT. Where NOCs have expired, affidavits have been obtained from the concerned employees Page 11 of 16 OA No.20/303/2022 and their relieving has been processed as per priority and the names of 8 applicants are under consideration for relieving on IRRT and the requests of other applicants will be considered in the next phase.
10. Heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the pleadings on record.
11. It is argued by the applicants that the delay in relieving them would be to their disadvantage in seniority in the new zonal railways as they will become juniors to the newly recruited ALPs and IRR Transferees from other zones. Hence, the letter dt. 17.03.2022 show poor management of the administration. As can be seen from the steps taken by the SC Division and NED Division in processing the IRRT requests, there is no immediate requirement in the said divisions for Loco Pilots and therefore, the interim order may not be vacated vis-à-vis IDRT requests. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted a letter of Guntakal division dt. 30.12.2022 communicating the approval of the competent authority for IRRT of 19 Loco Running Staff as ALP, with valid NOCs, out of the said list of 19, names of the 3 applicants find place. But, the respondents have not followed the priority list while relieving the employees. The career of the applicants would be effected as they would join in the initial grade on bottom seniority and therefore, they have to be given priority.
12. As seen from the reply, the respondents stated that newly recruited are undergoing training and on their reporting to duties, the cadre position will improve and IRRT will be permitted in a phased manner and the respondents requested for some time for relieving the employees on IRRT Page 12 of 16 OA No.20/303/2022 in the order of divisional priority and also allow them to process IDRT in a phased manner too, as considering IDRT does not lead to loss of trained manpower for divisions and SC Railway. Through IDRT, SCR can transfer an employee based on his request to a particular unit and it will also enable the Zone to redistribute its employees from units having surplus to units having vacancies and it will not result in net loss of manpower in overall zone and thus, train operations are not affected adversely, whereas in IRRT, SCR as a zonal railway will lose its employees, thereby adversely affecting train operations. But, in so far as allowing the IDRT before the IRRTs are effected, as contended by the applicants, it will result in reduction in the cadre in the Division, which may again effect their chances of being relieved on their IRRT.
13. As seen from the additional reply, about 50 employees including 8 applicants have been approved by the competent authority for being relieved on IRRT. Further, vide Officer Order dt. 30.12.2022 produced by the learned counsel for the applicants, competent authority approved for relieving on IRRT of 19 employees which includes 3 applicants. Thus, the process of relieving on IRRT is going on. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the respondents are relieving the Loco Running Staff on IRRT without following the priority list, which would adversely affect the applicants.
14. Due to their personal difficulties, the applicants requested for IRRT and they are prepared to join the lower recruitment grade in the new zone/ division, by foregoing the seniority as well. Their requests were accepted by the relieving Administration as well as the accepting Administration and Page 13 of 16 OA No.20/303/2022 the latter also gave NOCs to the applicants. Having done so, relieving the new entrants on IDRT or IRRT basis, without relieving the applicants, who are seniors and waiting to go to new zone of their choice, may not be correct. Having accepted the requests of the applicants on IRRT long back, the respondents are supposed to come up with a concrete action plan to relieve them at the earliest, because the applicants will have to join in the lowest recruitment grade, with bottom seniority. Therefore, the more the delay in their relieving them, the more disadvantage they will be put to. The Administration at SC Railway or Guntakal Division may not keep silent without taking any action in the matter, merely by saying that the accepting Division/ Zone has not given their acceptance, enabling the former to relieve the applications on IRRT. The arrangement of IRRT itself is formulated by the highest body in the Railway Administration, having taken all the stakeholders on board. It is for both the Railways/ Divisions concerned to sort out the issues inter se and see that the requests on IRRT, with valid NOCs are acted upon and the employees concerned are relieved to join the respective division/ zone.
15. The issue relating to IRRT was dealt by the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana in WPs 31544/2016 and WP Nos. 11551/2019 & batch and observed that once a policy decision is taken to grant IRRT, it would not be proper not to relieve those who got the IRRT. Following the order of the Hon'ble High Court, this Tribunal adjudicated OA 402/2021 vide order dt. 17th day of June, 2021 as under:
"The dispute is in regard to not relieving the applicants on IRRT. Respondents not relieving the applicants is a common dispute which figures too frequently before this Bench. In fact, the issue has become so acute that the Hon'be High Court of Page 14 of 16 OA No.20/303/2022 Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh had to intervene when a challenge was made against the order of this Tribunal in a batch of OAs and issue directions in WP No. 31544 of 2016 & batch, on 31.10.2017, as under:
"8. We have carefully considered the above submissions. As seen from the Serial Circular issued way back in the year 2005, the employees are entitled to make requests for transfer from one Zone to another. Such transfers may be accepted or may not be accepted. But once these requests are accepted, the employees are to take the bottom most seniority in the Zone to which they are transferred.
9. In the cases on hand, it is not the case of the Administration that the requests of the respondents for Zonal transfer were liable to be rejected. Their requests were already accepted. The respondents did not go to the Tribunal seeking a positive mandamus directing the Railway Administration to transfer them from one Zone to another. If they were seeking a transfer through Court order, the Administration may be entitled to put Rule 226 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code.
10. But once their requests for Zonal transfers have been accepted, the same cannot be kept in cold storage. If we have a look at the timeline of events, it could seen that by the Circular dated 02-11- 2005, the Administration was directed to draw a time-bound programme. Exactly a period of 12 years has now passed from the date of the said Circular. No time-bound programme has been chalked out by the Administration. The Circular also mandates that existence of vacancies need not deter the implementation of the orders of transfer. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in allowing the applications of the contesting respondents.
11. It is interesting to note that the requests of the respondents for Zonal transfers were accepted way back in the year 2012 and 2013. Now a period of 4 to 5 years has passed. As and when the respondents go and join in the respective Zones, they have to take the bottom most seniority. Therefore, any further delay on the part of the Administration, will only weaken the morale of the persons, as it may dampen the prospects of their further promotions.
12. It is not the case of the Administration that no recruitment ever took place after 2012-13 up to this date. Their only case is that adequate number of persons could not be selected.
13. Therefore, in such circumstances, the blame, if at all there is any, may perhaps lie on the part of the Railway Recruitment Board and not upon the individual employees. Therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed. However, the Administration is given time up to 28th February, 2018 to relieve the respondents to enable them to join in their transferred places. To facilitate these applicants, the Railway Recruitment Board is directed to complete the process of recruitment by 31st January, 2018. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. No costs."
Thus, there are directions to the respondents from the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad to relieve the employees who were granted Inter Railway Request Transfer, in a specified period. Respondents have to abide by the directions of the Hon'ble High Court.
Page 15 of 16
OA No.20/303/2022 II. Besides, Railway Board orders vide RBE No. 203/2019 dt.26.11.2019 & dt.1.10.2020 and R-1 instructions are clear that the employees granted IRRT have to be relived within 6 months and in case it is not possible, NOC has to be re- validated. Applicants claim that R-2 has been accommodating employees who have been granted NOC later without following the seniority in respect of approval of IRRT. This requires a reply statement to be filed by the respondents to verify this aspect.
III. Be that as it may, in the context of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court at Hyderabad cited supra and the directions of the Railway Board vide letters dated 26.11.2019 & 1.10.2020, it would not be appropriate for the respondents to delay the relief of the applicants, as it would adversely effect their seniority and future promotions. Thus, given the directions of the Hon'ble High Court & Railway Board, in the interest of justice, we direct the R-2 to accommodate the applicants as and when vacancies arise, strictly on the basis of the date of approval of IRRT in the respective cadre. NOC issued by R-2 in respect of applicants, if required, shall be re-validated as per Railway Board orders cited, till applicants are adjusted in East Central Railway. Further, R-5 is directed not to delay relief of applicants on receipt of appropriate orders from R-2." Further, as it is essentially a matter which falls within the domain of policy function of the Railway Administration, they may take an administrative policy decision at the highest level to avoid unnecessary litigation.
16. In view of the above, ends of justice would be met if a specific time of three months is given to the respondents with a direction to take necessary steps and relieve the applicants to the respective Divisions/ Zones on IRRT and in the meanwhile, if NOC of any of the applicant expires, the same shall be extended.
17. With the above directions, the OA is disposed of. Interim order shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER evr Page 16 of 16