Kerala High Court
Respondents In The O.A vs Applicant In The O.A on 4 November, 2010
Author: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/29TH PHALGUNA 1934
OP (CAT).No. 986 of 2011 (Z)
-----------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA.329/2010 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONER(S):RESPONDENTS IN THE O.A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS
PARK TOWN.P.O, CHENNAI - 600 003.
2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION
TRIVANDRUM - 695 014.
BY ADV. SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM,SC,RAILWAYS
RESPONDENT(S):APPLICANT IN THE O.A.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A. BIJU KUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O.C. APPUKUTTAN, TECHNICIAN (MECHANIC GRADE-II)
CARRIAGE AND WAGON OFFICE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY
TRIVANDRUM, RAILWAY STATION, TRIVANDRUM(RESIDING
AT SREE VISAKHAM, KALLUPALAM, EDAIKODE POST
KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY
R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.SHYAM RAJ
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-03-2013, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(CAT) 986 OF 2011
APPENDIX
EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE OA.329/10 ON THE FILES OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN
O.A.329/10.
EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IN O.A.
329/10.
EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4TH NOVEMBER, 2010 IN O.A.329/10 OF THE
CENTRAL ADMINISRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN &
B. KEMAL PASHA, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
O.P(C.A.T.) No.986 of 2011
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2013
J U D G M E N T
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
Respondent was appointed as a Skilled Artisan Grade III on compassionate grounds. He was, admittedly, the holder of an ITI trade certificate. Later, issues arose as to whether he should be treated as a person who has to be tied down to a term of his appointment on compassionate ground, to wit, that he should undergo training for three years, or whether it would suffice that he undergoes training for six months. The Tribunal held in his favour. The establishment is before us.
2. While he held an ITI trade certificate in A/c (Refrigeration), the employee concerned was taken as a Skilled O.P(C.A.T.)986/11 -:2:- Artisan Grade III(Technician). We have examined the relevant provisions of the Manual relied on by both sides. Matriculates could have also become Skilled Artisans Grade III, until they were taken out from the zone of choice by an amendment of 2000. But, one thing we find is that though the 2000 amendment says about ITI pass candidates in relevant trades from open market which is a modification to the amendment that stood until then, there is no clear expression in the Manual as to which trade is relevant for a particular post. Therefore, it is well within the decision making process of the selecting and appointing authority to consider as to whether a person who is being appointed is an ITI trade certificate holder in the relevant trade. The fact of the matter remains that the employee before us who had an ITI certificate in A/c (Refrigeration) is stated to have been appointed as a Skilled Artisan Grade III (C & W). We would prefer to go by treating that the appointing authority had duly applied its mind and had made the appointment at the relevant point of time. The O.P(C.A.T.)986/11 -:3:- question is whether such an appointee could have been further saddled with the liability to undergo training for three years. The argument of the establishment is that as per Annexure A2 placed before the Tribunal along with the reply statement of the establishment; in cases of compassionate appointments, the period of training will be three years and not six months. We have seen the decision of the Railway Board issued as per R.B.E. No. 113 of 2000. It noted the earlier decision contained in R.B.E. No.17 of 2000 laying down the minimum educational qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Skilled Artisan Grade III as "Course Completed Act Apprentice, ITI holder in relevant trade". Thereafter, the Railway Board was essentially accepting the request on behalf of the employees. Therefore, the Railway Board ordered that the requirement qualification for open market recruitment still continues to be as laid down in R.B.E. No. 17 of 2000; and the minimum qualification for appointment on compassionate ground as Skilled Artisan Grade III, should be prescribed as 10th pass, however that, the O.P(C.A.T.)986/11 -:4:- training period for "such compassionate appointments" will be three years as against the training period of six months for open market recruitment.
3. We are clear in our mind that Railway Board, while issuing R.B.E.No. 113 of 2000 was of the view that a Matriculate could be taken as a Skilled Artisan Grade III, in cases of compassionate appointments. The prescription of three years training has therefore to be understood to apply only to "such compassionate appointments", meaning thereby "compassionate appointments of the Matriculates with no ITI trade certificate." In this view of the matter, we do not find that the Railway Board ever intended to compel an ITI certificate holder who got appointed as a Skilled Artisan Grade III to undergo training for three years instead of six months.
4. More importantly, if an ITI certificate holder who comes in by direct recruitment as a Skilled Artisan Grade III is liable to undergo training only for six months, we do not see any rationality in saying that merely because the person comes O.P(C.A.T.)986/11 -:5:- on a compassionate ground, he should be compelled to undergo training for three years. It is settled law that what is being given as compassionate appointment is to the most needy. When the appointing authority has appointed an ITI certificate holder, it was not becoming of that authority to make further prescription that such a recruit should undergo training for three years.
5. Learned counsel for the establishment also pressed the contention that there is delay and laches on the part of the employee moving the establishment and the Tribunal. But, the impugned order does not reflect that the same was pressed at final hearing. We see that the Tribunal was not persuaded to hold that the application was barred by limitation. We also see that the Tribunal having entertained and granted relief, it would be impermissible for us to reverse the impugned order merely on any such ground. We may also record that the establishment took five months to come to this Court against the impugned order of the Tribunal.
O.P(C.A.T.)986/11 -:6:-
6. Contextually, we may place on record that one of the previous orders of the Tribunal rendered in O.A.1107 of 2010 which is stated to be quite similar on facts stands with the approval of this Court as per judgment dated 9.1.2013 in O.P. (CAT)No.2551 of 2012. We also see from the judges papers in that case that the order of the Tribunal that we are affirming hereby, was approved and applied by the Tribunal while deciding O.A.1107 of 2010 which led to O.P.(CAT)No. 2551 of 2012.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.
In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
SD/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
SD/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE
ul/-
[True copy]
P.S. to Judge.