Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Parveen Kumar Son Of Sh. Badri Personnel ... vs Union Of India Through General Manager on 2 May, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH O.A.No.1393-PB-2012 Order reserved on : 17.04.2013 Order pronounced on: 2.5.2013 CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. RANBIR SINGH, MEMBER (A) Parveen Kumar son of Sh. Badri Personnel age 53 years presently posted Chief Ticket Inspector-Line (CIT/L), Ferozepur, Punjab. APPLICANT By : Mr. D.R Sharma, Advocate Versus 1.Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. 2.Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Ferozepur. By : Mr. G.S. Sathi, Advocate. 3.Smt. Updesh Sandhu, CIT/Stn, Firozpur. By : Mr. K.K. Thakur, Advocate. Respondents O R D E R
HONBLE RANBIR SINGH , MEMBER (J) As per the Original Application, the applicant had joined service as Accounts Clerk on 25.10.1990. During the course of service, he reached the post of Chief Controller in 2003. However, on being medically decategorized, he was posted as Chief Inspector of Ticket in the year 2008.
2. The applicant further pleads that since 2007, he is Assistant General Secretary of National Federation of Indian Railways and the President of Utteriya Railway Mazdoor Union (URMU). It is pleaded that in every Railway Station, two posts of Chief Inspector exist namely Chief Inspector of Line (CIT/L) and Chief Inspector of Ticket Station (CIT/S). The post of CIT (L) is occupied by Senior CIT while junior officer is posted as CIT/S. This course of action is taken as per Memo No. 6C/O/D1p.I/ dated 9.4.2001 of respondent No. 2 which provides that to avoid any confusion, as per extent rules and norms, the senior most CIT shall function as Office In charge. The senior CIT have been posted as CIT (L) at Amritsar, Ludhiana, Jalandhar and Jammu Tawi Stations. The applicant avers that he is the senior most Chief Ticket Inspector (Pay Band Rs.9300-34800 + Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/-).
2. The grievance of the applicant is that though he is senior to one Ms. Updesh Kumari (Respondent No. 3) as Chief Ticket Inspector at Ferozepur, but instead of posting him as CIT (L), Ms. Updesh Kumari has been given dual charge of CIT (L) in addition to her own chare of CIT (Station), Ferozepur. This was objected to by the applicant upon which he was posted as Incharge Line (Ch. TTI/L/Ferozepur) vide order dated 31.10.2002 (A-2) while Smt. Updesh Sandhu was ordered to work as CIT (Station) Ferozepur. In pursuance thereof, the applicant joined his duty on 1.11.2012 (A-3). However, now vide order dated 29.11.2012 (A-6) the charge of CIT(Line) has been taken away from applicant and given to Respondent No.3. The applicant has further been posted as CIT (Squad) which post is averred to be not in existence.
3. The applicant claims that he is being harassed and posted against a non-existent post at the behest of the Northern Railway Mazdoor Union (NRMU), a rival union as the applicant happens to be an officer bearer of URMU. The applicant has filed this O.A. for quashing order dated 29.11.2002 (A-6) and for a declaration that he is entitled to work as CIT (Line) for all intents and purposes.
4. The official respondents No.1&2 have filed a common reply statement. They submit that mere posting as CIT (Line) does not involve promotion or up-gradation in status. They have denied that the post of CIT (Squad) is a non-existent post. The applicant has filed a rejoinder to this reply reiterating averments made in the O.A. He has also relied upon letter dated 29.11.2012 (A-8) and note sheet dated 29.11.2012 (A-9) to aver that the applicant has been removed from CIT (L) at the instance of Northern Railway Mens Union. This information has been obtained by the applicant under RTI Act, 2005. He submits that the official respondents admit that the applicant is senior to the private respondent and that the senior most CIT is to be posted as CIT (Line). Respondent No. 2 has issued instructions dated 7.2.2013 (A-10) that seniors should be posted on supervisory posts. He also places reliance on letter dated 12.7.2011 (A-11) and 21.1.2013 (A-12) to argue that the post of CIT Squad is not in existence.
5. Respondent no. 3 has filed a separate reply. She disputes that the applicant is the senior to her and that the post of CIT (Squad) is not in existence. Placing reliance on (2010) 2 SCC 114, Dalip Singh Vs. State of U.P. she submits that a litigant, who does not approach the court of law with clean hands is not entitled to any relief. She states that the transfer is an incidence of service and courts normally do not interfere in cases of transfer orders for which she has placed reliance on the following decisions :-
(a) 1991 SC 532 Shilpi Bokse Vs. State of Bihar
(b) 2001 (5) SCC 508 S.B.I. Vs. Anjan ) 2001 (8) SCC 574 National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagwan
(d) 2004(4) SCC 245 Union of India Vs. Janardan Debnath
(e) 2004 (7) SCC 405 State of U.P. Vs. Siya Ram
(f) 1992 1 LLJ 273 Syndicate Bank v. Sunder K. Paniyadi
(g) 1989 AIR 1433 Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani
6. She has further submitted that as per instructions if an employee is medically decategorized, he is to be placed below all the incumbents in re-deployed cadre on the date of re-deployment. She submits that a person on the basis of fitness-cum-seniority and competency is posted as CIT (Line). The applicant was Deputy Chief Controller and upon medical decategorization was re-deployed as Chief of Office Superintendent. On 7.10.2009, he was appointed as CIT on his own request. As against this respondent no. 3 was promoted as CIT on 29.10.1992. The applicant is averred to be a trade unionist.
7. The applicant has not filed any rejoinder to reply of the respondent no.3.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on the file.
9. We find that while working as Ch. TTI-L/FZR, the applicant was posted as Ch. TTI/L/FZR vide order No.940E/23/Pt.I/II/P1A dated 31.10.2012. The Northern Railway Mens Union had issued a letter to the DRM, Ferozepur indicating items to be discussed with him on 29th November, 2012. One of the agenda items was regarding the posting of the applicant herein. Note dated 29.11.2012 (which was approved by Senior DPO and DRM on the same date) indicates that a meeting was held in the chamber of DRM with the Union representatives and it was decided that the private respondent be allowed to work as CTI (Line) and the applicant herein be made to work as CIT (Squad). The note states that this arrangement was agreed upon by the DRM and Union representatives. Impugned order dated 29.11.2012 was issued accordingly after obtaining approval of the DRM. Thus, we find that the impugned order dated 29.11.2012 was issued not in administrative interest but for extraneous reasons. Therefore, it is malafide and perverse.
10. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this O.A. is allowed. The impugned order No. 940E/23/Pt.2/P1A dated 1.4.2011 (Annexure A-1) is quashed and set aside.
11. No costs.
(RANBIR SINGH) MEMBER(A) (JUSTICE S.D. ANAND) MEMBER (J) Place: Chandigarh Dated: 2.5.2013 HC*