Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Rajesh Kumar Choudhary vs M/O Railways on 1 November, 2018
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL:HYDERABAD BENCH HYDERABAD QA/020/1065/2018 & Dated: 01.11.2018 MA SCZOSTIG P2018 \S Between: AQ gh 1. Rajesh Kumar Choudhary', s/o Jate Hari Prasad Choudhary, aged about 45 Years, Occupation Senior Goods Guard (Group C} in the O/o The Chief Crew Controller, Secunderabad Division, Bezawada, r/o H. No. 16-10-44, Opp. Vikram Hotel, Near Vijayawada Railway Station, Purnanadanpet, Viiayawada, AP. 2. Santhosh Kumar s/o Parushuram Takur, aged about 41 years, Occupation Senior Goods Guard (Group C) in the O/o the Station Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Kazipet, r/o H. No.25-6-91, Vidyanagar, jublee Marke, Kazipet, Warangal dist, T APPLICANTS AND 1. Union of india, rep. by The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rall Nilayam, Secunderabad. 2. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer, Rail Niayam, South Central Rel way, Secunderabad. 3, The Principal Chief Operation Nianager, South Central Railway, Rall Niayam, Secunderabad. Respondents Counsel for the applicants Counsel for the respondents CORAM: > Mr kK. Siva Reddy > Mr. SM. Patnaik, SC for Railways. THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO, MEMBER iJ} THE HON'BLE MRS. NAINI JAYASEELAN, MEMBER (A) f ORAL ORDER
[Per Hon'ble Mr, Justice R.Kantha Reo, Member (J) % 4 ra eee Page det Seis nt) ?
¥ Heard Shri K. Siva Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the applicants and Shri §.M. Patnaik, learned Standing Counsel for Railways appearing for the Respondents.
2. MA for filing joint application is allowed.
3. Both the applicants ars Goods Guards. Both of them applied for inter- zonal transfers. Their applications were forwarded to the respective zanes and the respective zones accepted their requests and agreed to take them to their zones on inter-zanal tramsfer. There are several other employees like the applicants in the present O.A. Some inter-zonal transfers were given effect to and some were not. Agerieved by the same, same of the Pad employees whose requests for inter-zonal transfers were cansidered but S68, 272, 390 to 392, 444 ta 448, 359, S60, LO8O, LOBL & 1129 iLS220ES, The Tribunal dispased af the Q.As an merits by a common order dated 214.2016 and directed the respandent Railways to relieve the applicants therein within the time preseribed in the seid order, Agerieved by the same, the respondents Aled Writ Petition No.3 iSd4/ 2016 & batch, The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court by order dated 31.10.2017 confirming Rx, hoes oy Tribunal and directed the Railway administration te effect the inter-zonal transfers in respect of the respondents therein by 282.2018 by relieving t x them to enable them to join in thelr transferred places. To facilitate ae gos respondents in the Writ Petition, the Railway Recruitment Board was further directed to compiete the process of reerultment by 311.2018. The 311.2018. The applican .
praying for the same relief, Ther grievance is that even though 6 2 years have elapsed, their inter-zomal tran gfers were not given effect to and they were not relieved [rom their respechive e places Lo en sable ther to join in their transferred places.
4. 'The respondents contended as follows a 1} The applications of the employees are registered basing on zonal priority. There are | 606 vacancies of Goods Guards existing a8 on date over the entire gone and 421 in Secunderabad Division. Therefore, a decision was made ta relieve the candidates only 8 fier the position is Hmprave J sinee Goads Guards post & 3 sensitive galsty Caisgcny directly connected with tram operations. They refuted the contentions of the applicants that the East Central Raibway is still wilimg to femnoa the applicants. According to the respondents, the no objection give conditional and its validity period is already over. lt is further contended by the respondents that the apyplice have mo right for imergonal transier and in the exigencies © f servies, their requests for 'wter-zonal transfers can he jeeled. Acoarding to the respondents, the applicanis, Have no claim as perspective right for irans Fer fo another Railway or another establishment and, therefore, according to the respondents, tt 18 not mandatory on thelr part fo relieve the applicants.
i) Nextly, it is submitted frat the Raibway Recruitment Boord had fy supplied 383 papers of Cioods Guards but 167 had not joined the post.
Therefore, action is on h and to comvince the Rathway Reersiment Board for some more RRB papers for Goods Guards. Tt is submitted that while ES mi..
ww gMlevance of the applicanis' ers miloyeds, The responce wd to look after the safety of the travelling public rather than giving preference to individual needs. Drawing a distinction between Station Master category and Goods Guards category it is stated that Goods Guards are of wital safety category wher e they have to work in the running train for wertain distance whereas Station Master works in the station attending operational duties. The pay levels are alsa said to be different and, therefore, according te the respondents, both ¢ categories cannot be compared with each ether. In Station Master's case, she version of the respondents seems to be that the Hon'ble High Court had directed the Railway Reeruliment Board to supply papers to Rs iilwey administration and the 3 x dictum laid down will not be applicable in the case af Goods Guards. Wi} ft is further submitted that under Employment Notice dated 3/2015, Raibvay Recruitment Board had allotted 383 papers out of which 216 had joined and the R.R.B. has not g iven any replacement. On the other hand there are USO vacancies in the Guards category as on date. Thus, according ta the respondents, relieving the applicants who are Goods Guards would cause operational hazards and endanger the safety of general public. iw) Lastly it is submitted that ensuring safety is paramount function of Indian Railways which cannot be conmprom ised, Therefore, relieving of Goods Guards will jeopardize the travelling public. Contending as above, the respondents saught to dismiss the OLA. S, 'The main centention of the respondent Railways appears to be that if the Goods Guards, who are the applicants, are relieved, the safety of general hey prayed not to grant sny id be in jeopardy anvetreretore, public wou direction to valieve the Goods Guards.
se . LE peep oe 9 at inte £3 A bye 4 § Sy eYO rhs On which
6. Hefore proceeding Lo GiSpess of this G.A, the main grok nds on dow they Patrons + of the Hon the Writ Pelitions a ar - 2 = » > thay Foxe 4 4 " ey issed the Division Benth of ble High Coul dismisse d. in the earlier O.A.S against which Writ Peliions were filed, the respondent Raihways put forth the same contentions which are naw taken in the instant O.A. As the appheanis in the present case the applicants in those cases also contended that the delay in relieving them would jeopardize their career unlerost i the Railways to which they have sought transfer. In this context, i requires to be noticed that though the sai transfers basing on a priority [ist and in 8 dime bound marmner, the cases af same fumiors were considered ignoring Ure requests sof seniors. This has been made out from the pleadings of both the parties and there is ne dispute about the said fect and the said issue needs na illustraiion, The Division Bench af the Hen'ble Nish Nt Court repelled the contention af the respondent Railways that the applicants have ne right for transfer fo ct athe Division Bench made an obser relieving the respondents there The findings recorded by the Division Bench o 10 are as follows:
eee gy, In the cases on hand, it is not the case of the Administration that the requests of the 1 respandents for "onal transfer were iiable to be rejected, Their requests were already accepted. The respondents did not go to the Tribunal seeking 4 positive sravdunis c directing the Railway Administration to trans! rer them from ane zone to another. [f they were secking a transfer through C court order, the Administration may be entitled to pul 6 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code.
Wai fe! nk _ baaced 3 gi get ex Raifway or another establishment. The evation that there is always a ground for not sin even afier three years of the transier orders. of the High Court in para 9 & 2 :
2
S i = a ' = a 10, But once their requests for Zonal transfers have beer acce opt ted, the same cannot be kept | im cold storage. If we have a look at the ume line of events, co g0en that by the Cuireuler dated 27.11.2005, "the Administration was directed to draw a time-bound programme. Exacth a period of [2 years has now passed from the dete of the said Circular. No time- hound programme has been chalked out by the Administration. The Circular also mandates that existence of vacancies need not deter the imple mentation of the orders of transfer. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in allewing the applications of the contesting respondents."
'Therefore, the same contentions which are advanced in the present O.A by the respondents, were urged before the Hon' ble High Court. The 3 y Hon'ble High Court, considering all the facts and circumstances, passed the above mentioned order.
The learned coudsel appearing for the applicants comended that ifthe ot 'eterezonal transfers are not given effect and the applicants are not relieved, eareer prospects of the applicants, education of their children and other family rasues will be adversely affected. They 4 also brought to our notice the fact thal the agplicanis agreed to take up the bottom mest seniority. Therefore, any further delay in effeeting the inter-zonal translers will jeopardize their
3. Ci the other hand, [earned Standing Counsel appearing for the respandents contended that if the applicants are directed to be relieved, |
- poklic sateiy an 3 fat ¢ rouble far the Railway would endanger public safely and cause @ 108 of teauble for the Ratbway ¢ is : one af ~ at gh aS A ogetepe AROS e same canfention ia respect of The ot ation Masters was he Hon'ble High Court, But the Hon'ble High Court did not advanced before the Hon' bie Migr Me PALS " ~ assaf he accept the same. The iInter-zon al transfers af several cadres have been Se Dont 6 ~ accepted by the respondent RathwayScand, therefore, we think it mot proper to draw a distinction between various categories of employees and the Railway mes Administration is under duty to give effect to the said Inter-zonal transfers by 7 * . . i elieving the applicants.
9, Shri S.MU Patnaik, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent Railways contended that the applicants waited for the devision off the Hon'ble High Court in the aforementioned Writ Petitions and filed ihe present O.A. As the applicants are not parties to the said Q.As, they have not approached the Tribunal at appropriate time for redressal of their grievance, their original applications ought not to have been admitted by the Tribunal on account of the bar of limitation which is set out u/S 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. According to the learned counsel, after the decision [or mifer- gonal transfers was taken, the applicants ought te have approached the 'Tribunal within the period preseribed wS 21 ef the Tribunals Act. The leamed Standing counsel also relied on a decision of the Han"ble Supreme Court In S.S. Balu & Another vs State af Rerala & Others dated 13.1.2009 wherein the Supreme Court in para 18 of the padgement held as follows:
"18, Tt is also well settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity'. Government Order was issued on [5 1) 2002, Appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof Only afler che writ petitions filed by others were allawed and State of Kerala preferred an appeal where against, they impleaded themscives as party respondents. Tt is nmy a tite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches imespective of the fact that they are similarly situated te the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgement. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the sppellants at this stage.
seach in New Delhi Municipal Weuneidev. Pan Sin: eh and Ors, (2007) 9 SCC 278, this Court held:
"tO. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. The respondents herein Aled a writ petition afer 17 years. They did not agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 1? workmen at the carhest possible apportunity, They did not implead themselves as parties even in ihe reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their ease that after 1982, these employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said scale of pay. Afler such a lang time, therefore, the wril petitions could not have been entertained even if they are similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the court affer a long time. Delay and laches are vyelevan t facts for exercise of equitable jurisdiction."
i
10. The judgement relled on by the learned Standing Counsel, in our < view, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The said decision relates to appointment and the Supreme Ceaut with reference to the facts of the case took a view that the applicants only after knowing sbout the decision rendered by the High Court in favour of some other candidates approached the High Court and, therefore, they ate not entitled for the relief which was given to the applicants before the High Court. The fact situation in the case before ihe Supreme Court and in the present OA is distinguishable. In the case before the Supreme Court, the appellants therein sought a manedamxs in oe respect af their right to appointment. In the present OLA, the request of the applicants for their inter-zonal transfer was already considered by the Railway administration and they approached the Tribunal as the same was not given " iz See ae vei ? on Sy ohn ie if effect to even after 6 b9 years, Since the inter-zonal transfer af the applicants and other employees were sought to be given effect to by the Railway administration in a time bound manner basing on priority lst, at no point of time the applicants in the instant case were rejected of their request lor inter- zonal transfer, Since as per the policy of Railways, it has to be done in a time bound manner, the applicants waited for implementation and as it was not done within « reasonable time, they approached the Tribunal. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the contention that the relief prayed for by the applicants in the present O.A. is barred by limitation wS 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, Li. As regards the question whether the decision of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in the above Writ Petition applies to the applicants in the present case, we are of view that it applies to the Railways as well as the Railway employees whose requesis for inter-zsonal transfers were approved and have been waiting for their release from their respective places.
12. We took notice of the statement of the leamed Standing Counsel for the Respondents about the meonvenience that would be caused to the Railways in the event of relieving the applicants immediately. At the same "> time, we are conscious of the feet that the finalization of the relieving of the applicants cannot be put on hold by the Railways indefinitely and the Railway = administration bas to effect inter-zonal transfers within a reasonable time.
13. After rendering the aforementioned judgement by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court, the Respondent Railways ought to have taken steps to relieve the employees whose requests for Inter-zonal transfers are tig Sie ms A accepted. But the Railay & ; SSE s passed by the Hon'ble high Court in the above batch of Writ Petitions, 14, in view of the foregoing discussion, we afe of the view that a direction requires to be given to the respondent Railways to release the applicants so as to enable them to join in their respective transferred places pursuant to their inter-ronal transfers, Therefore, the respondents are directed to take steps ta relieve the applicants to their transferred places within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. 1s. The OA is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs, 1