Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Mod Salim Mohd Sayeed vs M/O Railways on 22 November, 2019
j OA No.2 10/00241/2013 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 210/00241/2013 Dated this Friday, the 22™ day of November, 2019 CORAM: R.VIJAYKUMAR, MEMBER (A) RAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER (D) Shri Mod. Salim Mohd. Sayeed, Age 52 years, Working as Assistant Canteen Manager Central Railway, Bhusawal, residing at Quarter No.K/2 62B, Augwalla Chawl, At Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon 425 201, ~ Applicant (By Advocate Shri Vicky Nagrani) VERSUS 1. The Union of India, Through the General Manager, Central Railway, Head Quarters Office, Mumbai C.S.T, Mumbai 400 001, 2 The Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Bhusaval Division, Bhusaval, Dist. Jalgaon 425 261. ~ Respondents (By Advocate Shri VD. Vadhavkar) ORAL ORDER
Per: R.Vijaykumar, Member (A} 4 counsel for the applicant and Shri V.D.Vadhavkar, learned counsel far the respondents.
2, This application has been filed on OL1.04.26013 under Section 13 of the Administrative T 2 | OA No.210/00241/2013 ribunals Act, the following reliefs:
1985 seeking "$a, This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case from the Respondents and after examining the same, quash and set aside the impugned order dated 22.05.2012 with all consequential benefits.
8.b. This Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the Respondents to grant actual promotion to the Applicant to the post of Salesman wed. 06.11.1997 (as admittedly granted to the junior of the Applicant) and further to grant promotion due to him as per the rules and accordingly refix his pay wef, 06.11.1997 with all consequential benefits including back wages.
&.c. Alternatively this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Respondents to grant notional promotion to the post of salesman w.e.f 1997 to the Applicant and consider his case for subsequent promotion due to him considering the date of promotion of salesman as 06.11.1997 and further direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Applicant for promotion to the post of Canteen Manager Grade II and Grade | by fixing his grade pay at Rs.2400 Le. the grade pay of the Canteen Manager 1 & Hf with all consequential benefits as there are 2 vacant post in in the said grade as of today and the Applicant being the senior most to be considered.
8.d. Costs of the application be provided for.
Se. Any other and fiirther order as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the nature and circumstances of the case be passed."
« ty Statutory canteen iy % ~; =.
3. The applicant was respondents on 16.
Cleaner and was appointed on by fhe respondents Were ory of engaged in a nene run by a Consumer Society b52
-- OANG.210/00241/2013 respondents have: submitted that a@ seniority list was published on 29.11.1996 wherein the applicant was shown junior to one Shri Dhanras Bauskar. Although the respondents have stated that the applicant Ras not filed any representation in this regard, the learned counsel for the applicant 06.11.1997 and applicant 'subsequently year 2000 and as Salesman in 2003, when he 7 claims to have realized that his junior had ce already received promotion and had become senior to him. On his representations, the Said Junior was reverted as Vendor n 29.08.2006 and the apolicant was promoted SSistant Canteen Manager wit} ie promotion as 4 OA No.210/0024 1/2013 effect from 12.09.2006 by seeking promotion from the date on which his Junior was irections of this Tribunal in Bs at "G & ro er be ¢ ft that OA on 20.01.2012, the respondents rs } a sned reply stating these circumst ances
-
and corrective action taken by them and Further pointed out to him thet he had been granted financial benefit by regular promotion. in their reply, the learned counsel for the respondents &lso pointed out that in case they accede to his request to grant him benefit from 1997, he would Suffer financial loss and tha present Situation was financially better in his case, orders of the respondents and filed this OA on 02.04.2013. The learned counsel for the applicant was heard First on LILLL.2019 and {3 jos jot fe fi.
> jw a 43] Oh.
tty ¢ we iB 3 Q oy a eh GS ce cf O 3 Gy bet Oo» rs OO rs @ @ a 4d @ wy n ES ' '3 Meet CG ee) 44 ' Q 1 a 9 os 4d 42 foe ke ved ved Se ed 3 ee) a & ci Qo vd c i 6 Co e G G a Be a 44 SR A id w bed cc 4 ap & 2) o cH KS im 6 pee uw 4 $3 beg ed 4 6 ° i ord wy "4 G i "s v =f m, 4 6G . ved . ord = ft co 4. ct . 8 % 3S 8 -- & #8 4, Bo re ic on i oO e a " i od Sg FP a RP Bot Be a Gow fe tt et Hah ' th Ss 4 3 2 os m5 a g § @o wood op f& - O bg rt a ee) a ht aa . si a o Sand ES gad & O % oO yy :
ook ay ey aS oO uy oy ig OQ ep 4 . . Pram od iB @ n w ct ed ned 3 Coop kh ® 3 cn z gy a = w 4 mR Q 43 ma i ca) moO c tc Dp, 5 : "wf re & ms < sd " a Go GS sect vert ah @ is A o. 4a th Ch, D ne wu ~ & C8 2 Fm 2B 8 8 Be Bg 3 8 : / @ 8 & HO gr a Oo D2 & 7) w SM ow Go , md 0 io og S a a i wel @ « 6g 5 ; Een 5 8S ky Lo 2 re M4 4 iy rae 5 : u aA DO mw RB 8 & g p oO 1 o ord oo Boy wed c a "rd oO co @ i oy _& B "4 Z @ i i m4 S32 orl i rod u cs ey o Gi wt 4 Oa ee 3 8 ve gq oka ° : Qy 43 $5 ae) & 6 bed iB ord gp ed ved ed Gg} co 2 ? a} 43 G % e oh, $4 7 oO Oo gs 43 Ye O @ an ce: m 2, Gp es ot 3 3 GS ts ah ih $4 acd uy ra " / es ey Ly "rg GB "sy da 4 be © , a in 4 ly - £3 o 14 i . 43 j Q & % + DG * 2 he % e od i fe : 3 42 6 ed " . oO a & 3 cs eed a) ..
o 2 x Oo D - oe we ved 2 13 Pm . i " CO PP og se a itty ' 63 ie ta] 3 % rf 2 rt 3 Ch o 3 wd hed wy i i? ce a e 38 nn Gs wy i Se GQ ao bs a Es ne eh oe -¢ 8 tO Ho A Rd i % e mt 4d i 3 3 ie 4 oO n ' ws a oe ta = wo fet o wn vt wi a oO r ord ort a 5 A, a, oO b> @ 2 wR ont oh aed cS ka 0 Pog is) ct tw e 4 4 et ' xc 8 t > @ on ee ra 4 3 so) & C3 fi g) be . it " o 8 oon % oO "wt a * dd wit 43 3 oO rd Q oO ut c pet . " D w Bs m5 Oe " Oy a oN 8 0 6 6BOUlUB Ole UE ge 8 8 oe bp @ 28 4 8 Yow " 8 «6 7 o 6 A i= 44 O Ge 44 a is yp " o Oh $4 " Y . oe MH 42 oO» £ 6 6 , gt aH GY og 9 os ri @ @ 45 44 oC wD Q a c ct ® UU wy Re # iy G w wy Q 42 "es | M Hb a Ss 8 GS x D- eo wm °* 4 ef wv "Mo ee: rf r4 4 ee Phy @ a a sy 3 uy hd 44 4d ay is ty er a eB G Ry tf} ip @ w y Ad G a © i i Oy o g3 i} ad Qe oe i) M4 it Ww SS a Es a4 > SS ws Sa Sa 4 m4 i) oO 6 o BT wd Set OG Fo o& 98 4 8 4s O Es wo Oo 2 Ho ry m om os g st ca Oo © S. ont md a o, <f Oo
a) we sor 1 to xa set lished the seniority list pub ovember, by the a Ree inted ou poi as However, oO oF their aN Said the | working Was along with Junior already received a w Ke 43 a naturally. objected and have re coy Os oot i rf ip it oD $a i133 Si sy
a) a it applicant's behav:
sp 3 a matter Sr. bo $3 a sof tet 4 ov} Q 2OLl.
an :
wy ae representation mstances, ot 3 $4 ved OG these sen in its 63 RRA te Dan eva a aan eee J o Ae 3 r cA.
OA No.2 10/0024 1/2013 belated request of the applicant is seriously affected by limitation. Moreover, as the respondents have emphasized that the applicant would be financially affected if he pursues his present request, we note em eT Chat AL is not the applicant's case that any of his juniors have been promoted by reason of the errors of the respondent.
8. In the circumstances, we da not find any merit in the present OA both on the aspects of merit and on account of limitation and it is accordingly dismissed.
(Ravinder Kaur) Member (Judicial kmg™ ' (R. Vijaykustiar) Member (Administrative)