Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Unknown vs Union Of India on 29 January, 2013
Open Court CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD ***** (THIS THE 29thDAY of JANUARY, 2013) Honble Mr. Shashi Prakash, Member (A) Honble Ms. Jasmine Ahmed, Member (J) Original Application No. 82 of 2013 (U/S 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985) Amar Nath Singh, S/o Sri Devendra Singh, R/o 297E Ram Janki Nagar, Basaratpur (Near Om Convent School), Post Basaratpur, District Gorakhpur. Applicant Present for Applicant : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dubey. Versus 1. Union of India through its General Manager, N.E.Railway, Gorakhpur. 2. Chief Workshop Manager, Mechanical Workshop N.E.Railway, Gorakhpur. 3. Chief Workshop Manager (Personnel) N.E.Railway, Gorakhpur. Respondents Present for Respondents : Shri Avnish Tripathi. By Honble Mr. Shashi Prakash, Member (A) O R D E R
The present OA has been filed seeking direction to give the designation of Junior Engineer to the applicant from the date of cadre structuring i.e. 01.11.2003 and provide him promotion as Supervisor since 2002.
2. In brief the facts of the case are that the applicant who was initially appointed as Khalasi on 18.5.1986 promoted to the post of Tindal Grade-III on 23.12.1989, Tindal Grade-II on 27.12.1991 and thereafter, in Tindal Grade-I on 22.2.1993. Vacancy in the post of Supervisor arose in the year 2002. On account of the seniority dispute with one Sri Dinesh Chandra who was made senior to the applicant by arbitrary decision of the respondents, he could not be promoted to that post.
3. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents to place Sri Dinesh Chandra above the applicant in the seniority list, the applicant filed OA 268/2004 challenging the corrigendum letter dated 23.10.2002 through which Sri Dinesh Chandra was made senior to the applicant. In its order dated 25.01.2008 the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider and decide the applicants representation. Respondents disposed of the representation by an order dated 24.03.2008 confirming their earlier stand. In the meantime Sri Dinesh Chandra was promoted to the post of Master-craftsman by order dated 30.6.2008. Subsequently, the applicant filed another OA No. 796/2008 challenging the order dated 24.3.2008 passed by the respondents and order dated 30.6.2008, giving promotion to Dinesh Chandra. In its order dated 12.8.2009 the Tribunal set aside three orders dated 23.10.2002, 24.3.2008 and 30.6.2008, which were challenged in the aforesaid OA by the respondents and also direct the respondents to give promotion to the applicant to the post of Supervisor in accordance with the rules with all consequential benefits. The order of this Tribunal was challenged in the Honble High Court. However, the Writ Petition was dismissed.
4. Pursuant to the order passed in OA No. 796/2008 respondents cancelled the corrigendum letter dated 23.10.2002 by memo dated 07.12.2010 and promoted the applicant to the post of Master-craftsman on 18.12.2010.
5. It is the case of the applicant that the direction of the Tribunal was violated by the respondents since the respondents were specifically directed by this Tribunal to promote the applicant to the post of Supervisor. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the applicant submitted representation on 04.06.2012.
6. The respondents by letter dated 27.07.2012 informed the applicant that in compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal they had cancelled the corrigendum by which Sri Dinesh Chandra had been placed at higher position than that of the applicant and that his promotion to the post of Master-craftsman was also withdrawn. In their reply, the respondents further submitted that against the post of Master-craftsman, vacated due to the cancellation of promotion of Dinesh Chandra, the applicant was promoted as Master-craftsman. Hence, there has been full compliance of the direction of the Tribunal.
7. In reference to the claim of the applicant that he should be promoted as Supervisor, the respondents have stated that Dinesh Chandra was never promoted to the post of Supervisor. Further more, the post of the Supervisor to which the applicant is claiming promotion, had been abolished by the Railway Board w.e.f. 01.11.2003.
8. Sri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant argued that after restructuring, the designation of Supervisor had been removed by the Railway Board w.e.f. 01.11.2003. It is relevant to note that in the cadre restructuring designation of the Supervisor has been changed to Junior Engineer. The learned counsel argued that in the light of this fact since there was specific direction by the Tribunal to promote the applicant as Supervisor and the post of Supervisor under the restructuring scheme has been redesignated as Junior Engineer, the applicant entitled is for designation at Junior Engineer.
9. Sri A. Tripathi learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the next promotional post for Tindal Grade-I is that of Master-craftsman to which the applicant was promoted. Though, in 2002 the next promotional post of Tindal Grade-I carried the designation of Supervisor, the applicant could not be promoted at that point of time due to seniority dispute. It is only after the alteration of the seniority list in favour of the applicant in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal that the applicant became eligible for promotion. The order of the Tribunal was passed on 12.08.2009. Having regard the fact that in 2009 the post of Supervisor did not exist having been abolished in the year 2003, the applicant was given promotion to the post of Master-craftsman which is having identical pay scale of the erstwhile Supervisor post.
10. Heard rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It would be seen that subsequent to the alteration of the seniority list in favour of the applicant the department withdrew the promotion order of respondent No. 4. in O.A. No. 796/2008 and in his place promoted the applicant to the Post of Master-craftsman. It is, therefore, evident that the respondents promoted the applicant to the immediate next promotional post existing in the department at the relevant point of time.
It is observed that the claim of the applicant is mainly for promotion to the redesignated post of Supervisor. In this regard it is felt that the hands of the respondents were tied as at the time of the implementation of the direction of the Tribunal the post of Supervisor did not exists. The department rightfully promoted him to the post of Master-craftsman to which Sri Dinesh Chandra had been promoted when he was senior in the list prepared pursuant to the corrigendum dated 23.10.2002. Since both the posts of Master-craftsman of Supervisor carry the same pay scale, as per the respondents, counsel for the applicant has been given the benefit to which he became entitled pursuant to the Tribunals order. Therefore, the OA is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Member (J) Member (A)
Shashi
??
??
??
??
5