Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Balbir Singh vs Union Of India Through The General ... on 20 July, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.2194/2009 With O.A.No.2195/2009 This the 20th day of July 2011 Honble Shri M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Shri A.K. Jain, Member (A) OA 2194/2009 Sant Lal s/o Shri Dina Nath Working as Head Parcel Clerk At N. Railway Station, Delhi Sarai Rohilla r/o 19/11, Railway Colony, Kishanganj Delhi Sarai Rohilla, Delhi OA 2195/2009 Balbir Singh s/o Shri Behari Singh Working as Head Parcel Clerk At N. Railway Station, New Delhi r/o 26/3, Railway Colony, Hazarat Nizamuddin, Delhi ..Applicants (By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Sharma) Versus 1. Union of India through the General Manager Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi 2. The Divisional . Railway Manager Northern Railway, Delhi Division State Entry Road, New Delhi 3. The Divisional Personnel Officer Northern Railway, DRMs Office State Entry Road, New Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Satpal Singh) O R D E R
Shri M.L. Chauhan:
By this common order, we propose to dispose of these two OAs (OA-2194/2009 and OA-2195/2009).
2. The grievance of the applicants in these cases is regarding assignment of seniority in the Parcel cadre, which seniority has been fixed by the respondents in terms of paragraph 302 of IREM Volume II, 1989 and the seniority, which was wrongly assigned to them, was rectified by resorting to provisional seniority list dated 20.12.2006. It may be stated that these two applicants have earlier filed OA-385/2008 and OA-387/2008 before this Tribunal challenging seniority list dated 20.12.2006. Both these OAs were disposed by the Tribunal vide the order dated 15.9.2008 by quashing the provisional seniority list dated 20.12.2006 and respondents were directed to afford the applicants a reasonable opportunity on communication of reasons as to alternation of seniority. The respondents thereafter considered the matter again in the light of the aforesaid observations made by the Tribunal and have rejected the representation of the applicants. At this stage, it will be useful to quote relevant portion of the order dated 1.7.2009 passed by the competent authority, which thus reads:
Now as per orders of the Honble CAT passed in your O.A. although seniority list issued on 20-12-06 has been set aside vide letter of even no. dt. 11/12/08, but it is informed that your were correctly assigned seniority in the Parcel Category since your initial appointment in terms of Para 302 of IREM-VOL-II/1989 and seniority which was wrongly assigned to you vide letter dt. 29-12-03 in terms of Para 306 of IREM-VOL-II/1989 is not acceptable as instruction contained in Para 306 is not applicable in the cadre of Parcel Clerk.
As per Honble CATs orders you have also been given opportunity by issuing Show Cause Notice regarding your reassignment of seniority. But you have again raised the same points in your representation dt. Nil received against the Show Cause Notice. It is pointed out that you have assigned seniority correctly since your initial appointment and revision of your seniority vide notice dt.29/12/03 was incorrect which was properly corrected vide seniority list issued on 20-12-06.
Hence it is again pointed out that in case the seniority assigned on 29-12-2003 as well as 03-1-2005 is maintained, it would lead to an anomalous situation where the persons who had joined the working post earlier would rank junior to your whereas you joined the working post later. In this way question of revision of DPC of Parcel Supervisor 5500-9000 does not arise as the same has been conducted & finalized as per correct seniority and you could not be placed on the panel therein being junior. It is this order, which is under challenge in these OAs.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.
4. At this stage, few relevant and undisputed facts may also be noticed. The respondents issued a seniority list as on 30.7.2001 on the post of Head Parcel Clerk in the grade of Rs.5000-8000 in which the names of the applicants were shown below number of junior persons followed by another seniority list dated 27.6.2003. However, subsequently later in the year 2003, in the seniority list circulated vide letter dated 29.12.2003, the applicants were inadvertently assigned higher place in the seniority list in the category of Parcel cadre and the said mistake was continued in the seniority list of 3.1.2005. Against the seniority list dated 3.1.2005 certain affected persons filed representation. The matter was examined and the respondents issued another seniority list dated 20.12.2006 and the mistake perpetuated by them in the earlier seniority lists were rectified. Feeling aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the aforesaid OA-385/2008 and OA-387/2008 were filed by the applicants in this Tribunal, which were disposed of and the impugned provisional seniority list dated 20.12.2006 was quashed and direction was given to the respondents to decide the matter afresh after affording an opportunity. Now the respondents have decided the representation rejecting the claim of the applicants for the reasons stated in the impugned order, the relevant portion of which has been reproduced hereinabove.
5. Now the sole question, which requires our consideration, is whether the action of the respondents regarding assigning lower seniority to the applicants and rejecting the representation of the applicants vide the impugned order, which order was passed pursuant to the direction given by this Tribunal, has to be upheld or not? According to us, no relief can be granted to the applicants in view of the decision rendered by this Tribunal in Ravindra Nath Mishra & others v. Union of India & another (OA-1556/2007 and OA-227/2007) decided on 9.5.2008. It may be relevant to state here that the validity of the seniority lists dated 29.12.2003 and 3.1.2005 whereby the applicants were assigned higher position, which seniority list was subsequently modified vide the seniority list dated 20.12.2006, were subject matter of dispute in the aforesaid OAs. It may also be stated here that the names of the applicants in the seniority list dated 3.1.2005 (Annexure A-1 of the paper book in OA-1556/2007) find mention at Sl. Nos. 100 and 102. Similarly, the names of the applicants in OA-1556/2007 and OA-227/2007 have also been incorporated in the said seniority lists. This Tribunal after noticing the contentions raised by the parties has specifically held that the seniority has to be fixed in terms of the provisions contained in paragraph 302 of IREM Volume No.1. As can be seen from the reasoning given by the competent authority, relevant portion of which has been reproduced in the earlier part of this order, it has been categorically stated that the seniority assigned to the applicants vide the letters dated 29.12.2003 as well as dated 3.1.2005 was erroneously issued by misinterpreting paragraph 302 of IREM Volume I and when the representation was received from the affected parties, it was found that the seniority assigned to the applicants was wrong and accordingly another seniority list was issued on 20.12.2006. The respondents have stated that in case the seniority assigned to the applicant on 29.12.2003 as well as on 3.1.2005 is maintained, it would lead to an anomalous situation where the persons who have joined the working post as coaching clerk earlier would rank junior to the applicants, as the applicants joined the working post later. Since this Tribunal has gone into the validity of the seniority lists dated 29.12.2003 and 3.1.2005 in the case of R.N. Mishra & others (supra), which was decided by this Tribunal vide the order dated 9.5.2008 and it has been held that the applicant in the said case has completed training in the year 1986, which seniority has to be fixed with those direct recruits who had completed their training in the year 1986. It is not legally permissible for us to give contrary finding qua same issue. At this stage, it will be relevant to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment of this Tribunal in OA-1556/2007 & OA-227/2007 (supra), which thus reads:
15. It is correct that vide order dated 29.12.2003, applicants seniority was revised from Sl.No.96 to 34-A in the grade of Head Parcel Clerk, but since respondents found the same was issued wrongly, they gave show cause notice to the applicant by clearly stating therein that the seniority had to be fixed as per para 302 of IREM Vol.I and since he had completed his training in the year 1986, therefore, he ought to have been placed at S.No.96. At this juncture, it would be relevant to see para 302, which for ready reference reads as under:-
302. Seniority in initial recruitment grades - Unless specifically stated otherwise, the seniority among the incumbents of a post in a grade is governed by that date of appointment to the grade. The grant of pay higher than the initial pay should not, as a rule, confer on a railway servant seniority above those who are already appointed against regular posts. In categories of posts partially filled by direct recruitment and partially by promotion, the criterion for determination of seniority should be the date of regular promotion after due process in the case of promotee and the date of joining the working post after due process in the case of direct recruit, subject to maintenance of inter-se seniority of promotees and direct recruits among themselves. When the dates of entry into a grade of promoted railway servants and direct recruits among themselves. When the dates of entry into the grade of promoted railway servants and direct recruits are the same they should be put in alternate positions, the promotees being senior to the direct recruits, maintaining inter-se seniority of each group.
Note- In case the training period of a direct recruit is curtailed in the exigencies of service, the date of joining the working post in case of such a direct recruit shall be the date he would have normally come to a working post after completion of the prescribed period of training.
16. Perusal of above makes it absolutely clear that in category of posts partially filled by direct recruitment and partially by promotion, the criterion for determination of seniority would be the date of regular promotion after due process in the case of promotee and the date of joining the working post after due process in the case of direct recruit, subject to maintenance of inter-se seniority of promotees and direct recruits among themselves. We have already noted above that even at the time of issuing the panel, it was made clear that they would have to undergo the training. Admittedly, applicant completed the training in the year 1986, therefore, we would agree with the respondents staht applicants seniority would have to be fixed with those direct recruits who had completed their training in the year 1986. Applicant has not demonstrated at all as to who were the persons who ought to have been placed below him or above whom the applicant ought to have been placed. Since no detailed facts have been given, therefore, the contentions cannot be tested in view of vague averments. We do not find any illegality in the stand taken by the respondents as far as fixing of seniority of applicant is concerned.
6. Thus, since the validity of the seniority lists dated 29.12.2003 as well as dated 3.1.2005 has been examined in the judgment rendered in the aforesaid two OAs (OA-1556/2007 and OA-227/2007) where this Tribunal has categorically given finding that the said seniority lists have not been determined in terms of paragraph 302 of IREM and the petitions filed by the applicants were rejected, we are of the view that the applicants in these OAs have not made out any case for grant of relief and the judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench is binding on us and has also decided the matter correctly. It may also be stated here that even the Apex Court in the case of Swapan Kumar Pal & others v. Samitabhar Chakraborty & others, 2001 SCC (L&S) 88 has held that the seniority has to be determined in terms of paragraph 302 of IREM, which stipulates that date of regular promotion after due process of selection would be the date from which seniority has to be counted and the benefit of the ad hoc promotion cannot be given.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the present OAs are dismissed without any order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be placed in each case file.
( A.K. Jain ) ( M. L. Chauhan ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/