Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Aneesh T vs Sidharth K Varrma, Sr.Divisional ... on 20 July, 2023
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00170/2021
Contempt Petition No.180/00013/2021
in
Original Application No.180/00170/2021
and
Original Application No.180/00484/2021
Thursday, this the 20th day of July, 2023
CO RAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. K. V. Eapen, Administrative Member
O.A No.180/170/2021
1 Aneesh T, aged 33 years, S/o G. Thulaseedharan,
Senior Assistant Loco Pilot,
Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Palakkad,
Residing at 'Aneesh Bhavan', Puthusery,
Karingannoor PO, Kollam,
PIN 691516.
2. Sunil S, Aged 31 years, S/o M. Surendran,
Senior Assistant Loco Pilot,
Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Calicut,
Residing at 'Kuzhivila Veedu,
Kattachalkuzhi P.O. Thiruvananthapuram
PIN 695501.
3. Ramkumar B.A., aged 32 years, S/o K. Balakrishna Pillai,
Senior Assistant Loco Pilot,
Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Calicut
Residing at: Uthradam House,
Anandeswaram, Aryanad P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
PIN 695 542.
4. Anoop B.A, aged 32 years, S/o Babu M,
Senior Assistant Loco Pilot,
Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Shornur,
Residing at 'Aswathy Mandiram', Vellalloor P.O.,
Kilimanoor, Thiruvananthapuram Pin- .
5. Rahul Rajan, aged 29 years, S/o Rajan,
Senior Assistant Loco Pilot,
Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Shornur.
Residing at: 'Pullumvilayil,
Pavumba North P.O., Karunagappally, Kollam Pin-690 574,
2
6. Sajith Kumar S, aged 30 years, S/o Sajeevan ,
Senior Assistant Loco Pilot,
Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Shornur,
Residing at ' Suresh Bhavanam,
Kallelibhagom P.O., Karunagappally,
Kollam Pin- 690 519,
7. Prince Prasannan, Aged 30 years, S/o Prasannan D,
Senior Assistant Loco Pilot,
Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Calicut
Chaprayil House, Erickavu P.O.,
Kumarapuram, Alappuzha Pin 690516 - Applicants
(By Advocates: Mr. T. C. Govindaswamy, Ms. Kala T. Gopi & Mr.
Namadeva Prabhu B)
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented by the
General Manager, Southern Railway,
Head Quarters Office, Park Town P.O.
Chennai - 600 003.
2. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Head Quarters Office,
Park Town P.O., Chennai - 600 003.
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway,
Palakkad Division, Palakkad Pin - 678 002.
4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram Division,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 014.
5. The Railway Board,
Rail Bhavan, New Delhi-110001.
6. Vishnu Ravindran,
Assistant Loco Pilot(Electrical),
Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram Division,
Residing at Mundakkal, Velliyapally P.O., Pala,
Kottayam-686574.
7. Nandu Mohan, Assistant Loco Pilot (Electrical),
Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram Division,
Residing at : Siva Nandanam, Chandavila,
Kattayikonam P.O., Trivandrum - 695 584.
8. Tinson Abraham Chacko,
Assistant Loco Pilot (Electrical),
3
Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram Division,
Residing at: Karimbil, Prayar, Pandanad,
North Kallussery, Alappuzha - 689 124.
9. Amal V. R.,
Assistant Loco Pilot (Electrical),
Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram Division,
Residing at: Visagam, Vakkanad,
Kodikkodu, Kollam - 691 509.
10. Albert K. Joseph,
Assistant Loco Pilot (Electrical),
Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram Division,
Residing at: Kurusummottil House, Chakkampuzha,
Arunapuram, Kottayam - 686 574.
11. Arun S. Kumar,
Assistant Loco Pilot (Electrical),
Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram Division,
Residing at: Krishnan Nivas, Attoorkonam,
Peyad, Trivandrum - 685 573. - Respondents
(By Advocates: Ms. O. M. Shalina, SCGSC for R1-5 & Mr. S. K. Adithyan
for R6-11)
C.P No.180/13/2021
1 Aneesh T, aged 33 years, S/o G. Thulaseedharan,
Senior Assistant Loco Pilot, Southern Railway,
Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Palakkad,
Residing at 'Aneesh Bhavan', Puthusery,
Karingannoor PO, Kollam,
PIN 691516.
2. Sunil S, Aged 31 years, S/o M. Surendran,
Senior Assistant Loco Pilot, Southern Railway,
Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Calicut,
Residing at 'Kuzhivila Veedu,
Kattachalkuzhi P.O. Thiruvananthapuram
PIN 695501.
3. Ramkumar B.A., aged 32 years, S/o K. Balakrishna Pillai,
Senior Assistant Loco Pilot, Southern Railway,
Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Calicut
Residing at: Uthradam House,
Anandeswaram, Aryanad P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
PIN 695 542.
4. Anoop B.A, aged 32 years, S/o Babu M,
Senior Assistant Loco Pilot, Southern Railway,
Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Shornur,
4
Residing at 'Aswathy Mandiram', Vellalloor P.O.,
Kilimanoor, Thiruvananthapuram Pin- .
5. Rahul Rajan, aged 29 years, S/o Rajan,
Senior Assistant Loco Pilot, Southern Railway,
Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Shornur.
Residing at: 'Pullumvilayil,
Pavumba North P.O., Karunagappally,
Kollam Pin-690 574,
6. Sajith Kumar S, aged 30 years, S/o Sajeevan ,
Senior Assistant Loco Pilot, Southern Railway,
Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Shornur,
Residing at ' Suresh Bhavanam,
Kallelibhagom P.O., Karunagappally,
Kollam Pin- 690 519,
7. Prince Prasannan, Aged 30 years, S/o Prasannan D,
Senior Assistant Loco Pilot, Southern Railway,
Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Calicut
Chaprayil House, Erickavu P.O.,
Kumarapuram, Alappuzha Pin 690516 - Petitioners
(By Advocate: Mr. T. C. Govindaswamy)
VERSUS
Sri Sidharth K. Varma,
The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram Division,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 014. - Respondent
(By Advocates: Ms. O. M. Shalina, SCGSC)
O.A No.180/484/2021
1 Vishnu B. S, Aged 29 years, S/o. Babu Kurup,
Senior Assistant Loco Pilot, Southern Railway,
Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Palakkad,
Permanent Address: Madhavi Nivas, Mamom,
Kizhuvilam P.O, Attingal,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 104.
2. M. R. Rebin, Aged 31 years, S/o. Raghavan,
Senior Assistant Loco Pilot, Southern Railway,
Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Shornur,
Permanent Address: Meethethil, Puthuppallikunnam,
Charummod P.O., Alappuzha - 690 505.
5
3. Anil Raj, Aged 32 years, S/o. Antony A.,
Senior Assistant Loco Pilot, Southern Railway,
Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Calicut,
Permanent Address: Puthuval House, TC - 78/4163,
Vettucaud, Beach PO., Thiruvananthapuram - 695 007.
4. Renju Krishnan R, Aged 30 years,
S/o. Radhakrishna Pillai C.,
Senior Assistant Loco Pilot, Southern Railway,
Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Palakkad,
Permanent Address: Piravanthiyil Puthanveedu,
Ampazhavayal, Perinad P.O., Kollam - 691 601.
5. Rahul Krishnan, Aged 33 years,
S/o. Radhakrishna Nair M,
Senior Assistant Loco Pilot, Southern Railway,
Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Palakkad.
Permanent Address: 'Vishakam', Nedumpana,
Kollam - 691 576. - Applicants
(By Advocates: Mr. T. C. Govindaswamy, Ms. Kala T. Gopi, Ms. Sreekala
T. N & Mr. Namadeva Prabhu B)
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented by the
General Manager, Southern Railway,
Head Quarters Office, Park Town P.O.
Chennai - 600 003.
2. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Head Quarters Office,
Park Town P.O., Chennai - 600 003.
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway,
Palakkad Division, Palakkad Pin - 678 002.
4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram Division,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 014.
5. The Railway Board,
Rail Bhavan, New Delhi-110001,
through its Secretary. - Respondents
(By Advocates: Ms. O. M. Shalina, SCGSC for R1-5)
This Original Applications and CP(C) having been heard on 21 st June
2023, the Tribunal on 20th July, 2023 delivered the following: -
6
ORDER
Per: K. V. Eapen, Administrative Member The two O.As under consideration have been filed by the applicants, who are working as Assistant Loco Pilots (ALPs) in the Palakkad Division. They wish to get transferred to the Thiruvananthapuram Division of the Southern Railway against the DR quota vacancies for ALPs. There are seven applicants in O.A 180/170/2021 and five in O.A 180/484/2021. We will take the O.A 180/170/2021 as the lead OA in our analysis which follows, as the issues involved in both the O.As are essentially the same. It may be noted that the matter of Inter Division Transfers (IDT) of ALPs & other classes of Railway employees in various divisions of Southern Railway as well as the matter of Inter Railway Transfers (IRT) to and from other Zonal Railways to the Thiruvananthapuram and other Divisions of the Southern Railway or elsewhere has been dealt with by this Tribunal in many cases. These orders have also resulted in specific directions to the respondent Railway authorities in relation to the methodology/policy to be adopted in cases of such transfers. These orders/directions will be referred to in course of the analysis of this matter.
2. O.A No.180/170/2021 was first filed in March 2021 whereas O.A No.180/484/2021 was filed in September 2021. At the time of first hearing of the O.A 180/170/2021 on 8 th April 2021, this Tribunal gave sufficient time to the respondents for objections. An interim order was then passed on 08.06.2021 directing the respondents not to issue orders on the basis of impugned order in the O.A at Annexure A1 passed by the second respondent, who is the Principal Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Chennai till the next date of posting. The applicants filed the O.As as they 7 were aggrieved by this order of the 2nd respondent in the matter of inter divisional transfer of ALPs. Vide the order dated 30.11.2020, produced at Annexure A1 under the subject "Revised Transfer Policy of ALP-IDT/IRT reg.", it was indicated that in pursuance to the recommendation of SAG Officers Committee, the General Manager of Southern Railway Chennai had accorded approval for a revised transfer policy in respect of the ALP cadre as follows:
"a. Out of the total/net ALP vacancy in a Division, 75% shall be filled up from DR quota (RRB candidates) and the balance 25% quota may be filled through IDT/IRT process.
b. Minimum 5 years service is required to register IDT/IRT as against the present requirement of 3 years."
3. As earlier indicated, the 'IDT/IRT' referred to in the above order stand for "Inter Divisional Transfer (IDT) and Inter Railway Transfer (IRT)". The 'SAG' Officers Committee indicates that it is a Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) Officers Committee. Further, 'DR' refers to Direct Recruits and 'RRB' refers to Railway Recruitment Board. It was submitted by the applicants in the Original Application No.180/170/2021 that the Annexure A1 policy was a revised transfer policy in respect of the ALP Cadre. It was (and is) their contention that this Policy has been issued without jurisdiction, in so far as no 'rule making power' is vested with the 2 nd respondent, Principal Chief Personnel Officer (PCPO). Nor is there any provision for constitution of the so-called "SAG Officers Committee" for making such recommendations. In addition, the applicants also submitted at the time of filing the O.A 180/170/2021 that, in terms of Rule 123 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol.I (IREC, Vol.I)- "The Railway Board have full 8 powers to make rules of general application to Group C&D Railway servants under their control". Further, according to Rule 124 of the IREC, Vol.I - "The General Managers of the Indian Railways have full powers to make rules with regard to railway servants in Group C and D under their control, provided they are not inconsistent with any rules made by the President or the Ministry of Railways." It is submitted that the applicants had filed the O.A under the apprehension that this new Policy would be harmful to them in consideration of their request for inter divisional transfer from the Palakkad Division to Trivandrum Division. It is essentially the same reasons that is behind the filing of the O.A 180/484/2021 as well.
4. As earlier indicated this Tribunal on 08.06.2021 directed the respondents not to issue orders on the basis of the aforementioned Annexure A1 order passed by the PCPO till the next posting date. This interim order was extended on every subsequent posting date until 14.07.2021, when it was extended until further orders. The applicants filed a Contempt Petition CP(C) No.13/2021 dated 14.07.2021 in the O.A 180/170/2021 submitting that, notwithstanding the interim order dated 08.06.2021 the respondent No.4 in the O.A, who is the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer (SDPO), Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram Division had issued/caused to be issued an office order dated 15.06.2021 by which as many as 17 persons who had been selected through the RRB for appointment to the post of ALP, on having accepting offer of appointment and being found medically fit were appointed as trainee ALPs and had been sent for training. It was alleged in the Contempt Petition that the order dated 15.06.2021 of the 4 th respondent was very much against the interim order of this Tribunal dated 9 08.06.2021 and was in gross disobedience to the order of this Tribunal. It was alleged that it will have the impact of frustrating the relief prayed for in the O.A and thus, it would be just, legal and proper if this Tribunal calls upon the 4th respondent in the O.A to answer the charge of contempt of this Tribunal. The contempt petition is being dealt along with this O.A.
5. Meanwhile, the respondents filed MA No.180/517/2021 for modification of the order on interim relief passed by this Tribunal on 08.06.2021, contending that no employee has a right to claim transfer to a particular place. Further it was also contended by them that there were as many as 22 employees (ALPs) in the list, above the applicants who had to be considered before them for the inter divisional/inter railway transfer (IDT/IRT). These employees were senior to the applicants in the O.A. It was also contended by the respondents that the impugned Annexure A1 order had not violated any of the rules of the Railways. On the other hand, the Railways were finding it difficult to give fresh appointment to the direct recruit candidates and effect transfers due to the interim order. After considering these issues, this Tribunal modified the interim order on 23.12.2021 finding that the order had put a stop to the appointment process of direct recruits and there was no longer any balance of convenience in favour of the applicants as claimed by their learned counsel. The interim order was accordingly modified that "Any appointments made in accordance with Annexure A1 order will be subject to the outcome of this O.A".
6. Soon after the above modification was issued the respondents filed M.A No.180/156/2022 in which they submitted that the Department was 10 initiating steps to grant the relief sought by the applicants, by amending the earlier Order at Annexure A1. The permission of this Tribunal for sought for amending the same. This was allowed and the respondents were directed to carry out the proposed amendment in the Order and finish the same. Accordingly, a Memo was filed by the respondents, bringing to notice of this Tribunal a revised transfer policy (IDT/IRT) as pertaining to the ALP Categories as Annexure MA R1(A) dated 21.03.2022. This new order, in relation to the revised transfer policy which replaced the earlier Annexure A1 order was also produced by the applicants as Annexure A12. The applicants then filed an M.A seeking permission to amend the O.A to incorporate the said Annexure A12 and also to amend the relief sought in light the same. This M.A was allowed by this Tribunal vide its order dated 20.12.2022 and accordingly, an amended O.A in O.A 180/170/2021 was presented in January 2023.
7. Thus in view of the above developments the entire matter is being considered in what follows in light of the issues raised in the amended O.A filed in January 2023. In the amended O.A, Annexure A12 revised transfer policy dated 21.03.2022 is annexed as the new impugned order. In this order dated 21.03.2022, it has indicated by the 2 nd respondent, Principal Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway Chennai, that in pursuance to the revised recommendations made by the SAG Officers Committee after their discussion with the union representatives on the issue of revised transfer policy (IDT/IRT) of ALP categories, the General Manager had accorded his approval for following revised policy, in respect of ALP Cadre "1) The ratio of filling running staff vacancies shall be made at 35:65 instead of the ratio 11 75:25 advised earlier vide letter cited, i.e., out of total/net DRQ vacancy in AlP category in Division, 35% shall be filled up from DRQ (RRB Candidates) and the remaining 65% shall be filled through IDT/IRT. 2) ALPs who have rendered 3 years service in their working post shall be eligible to register for IDT, instead of the existing 5 years condition (DRQ refers to Direct Recruitment Quota). Further, it was also clarified in the Order that consequent to the issue of these instructions, the revised transfer policy of the ALP category circulated by the earlier Annexure A1 dated 30.11.2020 is to be treated as withdrawn.
8. The applicants submit that they are not satisfied with the above revised transfer policy either, in spite of the fact that by the policy the quota for IDT/IRT has now been increased from 25% to 65%. They submit that such orders, as was also in the case of Annexure A1 earlier are issued totally without jurisdiction, in so far as no rule making powers has been vested in this regard either with the PCPO or even the General Manager of the Southern Railway, Chennai. Besides drawing attention to the Rules 123 and 124 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol.I, described earlier, the applicants submit that in terms of the Rule 217 of Chapter 2 of the IREC, the rules for the recruitment of non-gazetted Railway servants are contained in the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. As per Rule 137(1) of Part-III of Sub Section III of Section B of Chapter-I of IREM produced as Annexure A2, the post of Assistant Loco Pilot (Diesel/Electric) in the Grade Pay of Rs.1900 (level-2) has to be filled 50% by lateral drafting from among the volunteering Diesel/Electric Loco Fitters of Diesel/Electric loco sheds with three years' service in Grade Pay Rs.1900 (Level-2), failing which 12 Technicians (Fitter) Diesel/Electric Loco, with less than three years of service in grade but total service of six years and by promotion of staff in Grade Pay Rs.1800 (Level-1) in Diesel/Electric Loco sheds with a total service of six years in Diesel/Electric Loco sheds having certain specific qualifications. The remaining 50% plus the shortfall if any against lateral drafting/promotion vacancies, would be filled up by direct recruitment through the Railway Recruitment Boards. Further, it is submitted that in terms of Rule 102-A of Section B of Chapter-I of IREM Vol.I as indicated by the Railway Board in its Order bearing RBE No.24/2000 dated 08.02.2000 "Notwithstanding the provisions contained in this chapter, transfers on request on bottom seniority in the grades having an element of direct recruitment will be permissible against the quota prescribed for direct recruitment, provided that the employee seeking transfer possesses the qualifications prescribed for the direct recruitment to the post to which transfer is sought for". A copy of the order RBE No.24/2000 dated 08.02.2000 is produced as Annexure A3.
9. Hence, it is submitted that in light of the above Rules/Orders on the subject, inter divisional and inter railway transfers (IDT/IRT) are permissible and such transfers are to be effected against the 50% direct recruitment quota (DRQ) vacancies. Such transfers are to be effected based on a priority register maintained in the division to which the transfers have been sought. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that within the direct recruitment quota it is always the IDT/IRT who have to be given a priority over the fresh recruitees through the RRBs. The amendment with incorporation of the paragraph 102-A shown at Annexure A3, had been 13 made in the Recruitment Rules to make it possible for such appointments by transfer. Further, a compilation of orders in relation to IRT/IDT transfers has been produced by the applicants at Annexure A11, in relation to the priority for such transfers. At the point 19 of the Annexure A11 compilation, a circular dated 11.01.1971 has been indicated wherein it is noted that the Board had decided that the Railway Administrations should taken into consideration the number of persons in various categories who have applied for transfer to the Railway/Division while making recruitment of additional men and placing indent with the Railway Service Commissions so that transfers may taken place without any hitch as soon as replacement becomes available with the appointment of fresh recruits. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that, in the light of this, indents are always made by the Division/Railways about the vacancies to be filled only after taking into account the IDT/IRT requests.
10. The applicants have also brought to notice that this entire issue, taking into consideration the Railway Board orders on the subject, had been considered at length by this Tribunal in O.A 902/2010 and connected cases in its order dated 17.02.2012. A copy of this order has been produced at Annexure A4. This Tribunal, in this matter relating to Assistant Station Masters/Station Masters/Loco Pilots who were aspirants for transfer from different Divisions to Trivandrum Division, where in some cases the Trivandrum Division had already given its approval for the transfer of these employees from the parent division but they had not been relieved, and also in some other cases where transfer applications were not being considered on preferential basis as were required under the rules, had issued orders, the 14 nature of which was almost a policy direction to the Railways. This was done, as the Tribunal noted, because the position of the applicants in the said O.A would otherwise be affected by not considering their transfer applications on time as their seniority was being unduly compromised. The Tribunal after going through various circulars on the subject including PB Circular No.164/85 dated 26.12.1985, which had laid down that IDT/IRT transfer requests should generally be considered in preference to absorption of casual labourers/open market recruitment, subject to the condition that the transferee fulfils the requisite qualifications, age, etc. Hence, due to the delay in the issue of orders of transfers of those who had applied for IRT/IDT which had a cascading effect on their seniority, the Tribunal had directed that the ends of justice would be met if a direction was given to the effect that, before the next recruitment takes place to the post of ASM/ALP, either from the open market or from the General Departmental Competitive Examination (GDCE), the transfer request cases of the applicants should be considered on priority basis. The order further directed that where concurrence has already been received, such individuals should be relieved in a phased manner so that all those who are to be transferred would be accommodated before the next recruitment takes place. Further, the Tribunal also suggested that a concrete and fool-proof method should be adopted in matters of transfer on inter divisional transfers. With the technological advancements in communication technology and with profuse use of computers in Railways, it should not pose any difficulties to the Railways in having an online registration for inter divisional transfer. These directions in O.A 902/2010, along with directions dated 11.03.2023 in M.A 15 No.1065/2012 and connected matters filed in the O.A have also laid down also that the order in relation to giving priority for inter divisional transfer should not be interpreted in a way that would effect or impair the reservation policy.
11. It is submitted that it may be seen that from the above orders of this Tribunal in O.A 902/2010 produced at Annexure A4 and Annexure A5, that IDT/IRT are to be ordered on a rotational basis and in preference to direct recruitment in any particular division. The applicant submits that in terms of the existing orders of the Railway Board on the subject, all the applicants who were directly recruited and appointed in Palakkad Division on various dates starting from April 2012 onwards as Assistant Loco Pilots had already registered their requests for inter-divisional transfer appointment in Thiruvananthapuram Division against the DRQ vacancies. Their requests, registered for IRT/IDT transfer to Trivandrum Division from various Divisions of Southern Railway and other Railways on 29.05.2019, have been indicated by the Trivandrum Divisional authorities in their registration list as on 29.05.2019. The applicants' names are at Sl.Nos.192, 193,194,195,196,198 and 200 respectively of the registration list, a copy which has been produced as Annexure A6. It is submitted that many of those who were registered earlier than the applicants and were placed above them have since been transferred to Trivandrum Division or have either left service or have withdrawn their willingness to be transferred to Thiruvananthapuram Division. It is at this stage, when they were expecting their transfers to the Thiruvananthapuram Division as there are a large number of DRQ vacancies still there and they are in the zone of 16 consideration, that the respondents had issued first the impugned order dated 30.11.2020, produced at Annexure A1, which was later modified by the new impugned order dated 21.03.2022 produced at Annexure A12.
12. It is submitted by the applicants that Annexure A12 suffers from the similar infirmity which Annexure A1 suffers. In other words, Annexure A12 is beyond the rule making powers of the 1 st respondent General Manager. It is submitted that by these orders, the respondents are filling up all the existing vacancies in Thiruvananthapuram Division by appointing candidates selected through the RRB, overlooking the claim of persons like the applicants. It is submitted that the vacancies in Thiruvananthapuram Division would be offered to direct recruits, taking away the rights vested in the applicants by virtue of the various Railway Board orders and the judicial pronouncements at Annexures A4 and A5 of this Tribunal on the subject. The applicants also submit that no separate transfer policy, meant exclusively for Assistant Loco Pilots, can be declared by the General Manager, Southern Railway or by his Principal Chief Personnel Officer (PCPO). In case these orders are implemented substantial prejudice and irreparable injury will be caused to them.
13. The above basic contentions have been expanded upon during oral submissions by the learned Counsel for the applicant, Sh. T. C. Govindaswamy. He submits that the questions to be taken up in light of the orders issued by the PCPO on the directions of the General Manager, Southern Railway, vide Annexures A1 and A12, are as follows (a) Can such orders be issued without specific power being given to the authority concerned, as the area of such authority rests solely with the Railway 17 Board? (b) Can such orders be issued, confined to one class of Railway employees such as Assistant Loco Pilots and not cover any other class? It is submitted that there is no rule making power vested with the PCPO either under Article 309 of the Constitution or by any other rules made thereunder. Annexure A1 as well as Annexure A12 are therefore without authority of law and ultra-vires the rule making power vested in the Railway Board, as also with the General Manager as contained in Rules 123 and 124 of the IREC Vol.I. It has been done in excess of jurisdiction and is not based on the relevant considerations. It is also submitted that neither the PCPO or the General Manager has any such power for making rules or to issue instructions or orders which have the effect of nullifying the orders issued by the Railway Board. Annexures A1 and A12 are therefore ultra-vires of the orders issued by the Railway Board and are hence, without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the power vested in relation to Rule 124 to the General Manager is only in relation to rules regarding the Gr.C and D employees under his specific control and such powers cannot be exercised exclusively for a particular category of employees. In other words the General Manager Southern Railway cannot make a rule affecting the employees not under his control. The orders at Annexures A1 & A12 are however not just applicable to the direct recruits through RRB's but also to employees working in other Railways/Zones, over whom the GM, Southern Railway has no control. Thus the Annexures A1 and A12 orders are ultra-vires of Rule 124 of the IREC and hence "void ab-initio, non-est and operative".
14. It is submitted by the applicants that the Railway employees constitute a common and homogenous class in the matter of their service 18 conditions and the rules and orders relating to transfers, whether IDT or IRT, are the same for all employees within the Indian Railways. There is no justification in treating the Assistant Loco Pilots as a separate class from other employees of the Indian Railways in the matter of IDT/IRT. The classification arising out of Annexures A1 and A12 is irrational and arbitrary and the same has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Thus Annexures A1 and A12 are in negation of the equality clauses enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further, Annexure A1 and its replaced order at Annexure A12, suffer from the absence of authority and are in excess of jurisdiction of the constitutional provisions. The O.A has thus been filed for declaring Annexures A1 and A12 as without jurisdiction, ultra-vires of the statutory rules, arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable, contrary to law and hence, unconstitutional and to quash the same. It has also been filed to direct the respondents to consider, transfer and relieve the applicants to Thiruvananthapuram Division against the direct recruitment quota vacancies of Assistant Loco Pilots forthwith, with all consequential benefits including benefit of seniority from the date of Annexure A1 order.
15. The applicants have thus taken the position that the General Manager of the Southern Railway, by his orders at Annexures A1 and A12 has gone beyond his powers by making orders/rules for a specific class of employees (ALPs), whereas as the Rules 123 and 124 are for 'general application' for the entire class of employees. Further all such orders/rules are being framed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Constitution of India and the source of power is by statute. Such orders are also inconsistent with the orders of the 19 Railway Board and Rule 102-A, which are general orders where no further classification among the employees is possible. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that even though the said impugned orders are purportedly steps taken in light of the Tribunal's orders, it is to be noted that the Annexure A4 judgment of the Tribunal in O.A 902/2010 dated 17.02.2012, had only given a general suggestion but did not give any specific direction to the General Manager, Southern Railway for specifying any quota.
16. The detailed contentions made by the applicants have been sought to be met by the respondents in their reply statement, as well as by various memos/M.As filed by them. In respect of the nature of the powers under Rules 123 and 124 given to the Railway Board/General Manager under the IREC which is the major issue flagged by the applicants, it is contended that, as per Rule 123 of IREC, the Railway Board has full powers to make Rules of general application to Group C and Group D Railway employees under their control. Further, according to Rule 124, the General Managers of the Indian Railways also have full powers to make Rules with regard to Group C and D staff under their control, provided that they are not inconsistent with any rules made by the President or by the Ministry of Railways. It is evident from Rules 123 and 124 that the powers of the Railway Board and General Managers are concurrent with regard to Group C and D employees under their control, with only the added requirement tha the rules made by the General Manager shall not be inconsistent with the rules made by the Board. Therefore, at the outset, it is submitted by the respondents that there is nothing illegal in the General Manager Southern 20 Railway making rules for Group C and D employees under his control, consistent with Rules if any made by the Board in that regard. The orders at Annexures A1 and A12 have clearly indicated that, in pursuance to the recommendations of the SAG Officers committee, the General Manager (GM), Southern Railway had accorded approval for a required transfer policy in respect of ALP Cadre. The policy decision has been taken by the General Manager Southern Railway and not by the Principal Chief Personnel Officer Southern Railway as is being contended by the applicant. The PCPO is only communicating a policy decision taken by the GM in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 124 of IREC, to all the divisions of the Southern Railway zone. This policy decision has been taken by the General Manager as he is competent to do so under the IREC.
17. Further, with regard to issue in relation to Rule 102 A, it is submitted by the respondents that the Rule 102 has to be read in its entirety. Rule 102 of Section B of Chapter I of IREM relates to recruitment in the Railways. It is submitted that the Rule 102 makes it clear that the general rule regarding appointment to the Railways is by direct recruitment. Rule 102-A is in the nature of a proviso to the general rule and it is provided therein that transfer on request can also be made in the direct recruitment quota in grades having an element of direct recruitment if the employee is satisfying the qualification for direct recruitment. In such a situation, however, the transferee will be placed with bottom seniority. Further, in Rule 226 of IREC Vol.I it is provided that ordinarily a Railway servant shall be employed throughout his service on the railway or railway establishment to which he is posted on first appointment and shall have no claim as of right 21 for transfer to another Railway or another establishment. In the exigencies of service, however, it shall be open to the President to transfer the Railway servant to any other department or Railway or Railway establishment including a project in or out of India. In regard to Group C and D Railway servants, the power of the President under this Rule in respect of transfer, within India may be exercised by the General Manager or by a lower authority to whom the power may be re-delegated. In light of these rules there are also decisions by the Ministry of Railways that requests from Railway servants in Groups C & D for transfer from one Railway to another on grounds of special cases of hardships may be considered favourably by the Railway administration. Such staff transferred at their request from one Railway to another shall be placed below all existing confirmed and officiating staff in the relevant grade in the promotion group in the new establishment, irrespective of date of confirmation of length of officiating service of the transferred employees.
18. It is submitted by the respondents that the Rules and the Railway Ministry's decisions has made it clear that transfer is an exception to the general principle of direct recruitment and that the Inter Divisional Transfer is granted only on the ground of special cases or hardships. It is submitted by the respondents that no Railway servant can file claim as a right for transfer to another Railway or another establishment. The IDT is only provided to face the extreme exigencies or hardships and to give a solace to the employees. It cannot be permitted to be misused. It is stipulated that the IDT transfers will have to join with bottom seniority. This condition is attached for the purpose of ensuring the merit and preference of direct 22 recruits. Apart from this, the Administration has to incur the expenses of giving refresher training at the newly transferred place to the transferee for familiarization of routes to safeguard the safety of passengers.
19. Further to the above, the respondents have also brought to notice, orders of this Tribunal dated 26.09.2018 in O.A 1053/2017 and connected cases, a copy of which is produced at Annexure R1(a). It is to be pointed out that these orders have not been referred to by the applicant in spite of the fact that the same learned Counsel appeared for applicants therein. We note that these orders have extended the scope and the interpretation of the orders dated 17.02.2012 in O.A 902/2010 and other cases produced by the applicant at Annexure A4. In the O.A 1053/2017 and connected cases, this Tribunal had specifically considered issues in relation to the induction of loco pilots working in one division of Southern Railway and wanting to join another division of their choice as well as their placement ahead of fresh personnel coming through the general departmental competitive examination. It was noted by the Tribunal that this was not the first time that such a matter was being adjudicated as the issue of IDT in the Southern Railway and the continuing controversy surrounding the matter has been in relation to the priority on preference demanded by request transferees over placement of fresh recruitees. Referring to the order of this Tribunal in O.A 902/2010 and connected cases dated 17.02.2012, the Tribunal noted in its order in O.A 1053/2017 and connected cases that those previous orders had attempted to strike a balance between the competing claims and had suggested that the direct recruitment vacancies in various Divisions and matching the same with the pending applications in other divisions. After 23 examining the contentions made by both sides the Tribunal stated in its order in O.A 1053/2017 and connected cases that the problem needed a holistic remedy. It agreed with the preposition made by the Railway respondents that a balanced approach is necessary and vacancies cannot be filled up either by one group or the other. The Tribunal also found that in so far as the rights of the applicants being impinged, Rule 226 of the IREC nullifies that contention and no illegality can be put at the door of the Railways for not posting or for delaying the request for IDT. It was specifically held that the operational priorities of the Indian Railways, being the largest public utility in the country, cannot be made captive to the location preferences of a group of employees. Accordingly, in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the order produced at Annexure R1(a), the Tribunal directed as follows: -
"19. The solution apparently is to balance the induction of fresh recruitees with transfers of AlPs from other divisions on request, in a manner which will not compromise the safety of the running trains. The respondents ought to show greater alacrity in expediting fresh recruitment. At the same time in the interest of fairness they should ensure that IDT is granted on need basis and strictly in accordance with seniority in registration.
20. Again we are of the view that only the respondent Railways will be able to solve this problem in a manner which would ensure that there is least amount of discontent and disaffection. A formula incorporating a ratio may be considered while accommodating the contending segments. At the same time as more and more vacancies would arise in future, fresh recruitment should be expedited."
(emphasis added)
20. It is submitted that there have been no appeals filed against Annexure R1(a) by the applicants in the O.A and it has attained finality. Further it is also submitted by learned SCGSC Smt. O. M. Shalina appearing for the 24 respondents in this O.A that since Annexure R1(a) had already attended finality in tune with the decision, the General Manager Southern Railway had constituted a group of officers in the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) to study and propose suggestions for effective handling of Inter Railway/Divisional Transfers of Assistant Loco Pilots. In accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, the General Manager had initially accorded approval to fix the ratio of 75:25 between DR and IDT with a prescribed minimum of 5 years service to register for IDT as against the present requirement of 3 years. Later the recommendation was changed by the SAG Officers Committee after meeting with the Unions and other Employees' Associations to 35:65 between direct recruits and IDT transferees and the registration for IDT also was again brought down to 3 years. The orders at Annexure A12 was then issued with the approval of the GM, Southern Railway.
21. It is submitted that the Railways will always have to balance the requests of direct recruits as well as the transferees. While ID transfers are granted as an exception to the general rule, the Railway has to be equally responsible to protect the interest of meritorious direct recruits, especially in in more developed urban areas. It is submitted that Section 4(2) of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 empowers the General Manager of the Zonal Railway with general superintendence and control of a Zonal Railway. Both the Annexures A1 and A12 are valid and legal orders. Hence, it is submitted that the revised transfer policy for ALPs issued by General Manager is in tune with the directions of this Tribunal in the O.A 1053/2017 and connected matters. It is also in conformity with paragraph 102 A of Section 25 B of IREM Vol.I. There is no violation of Rule 123 or 124 of IREC in the General Manager taking the said decision and the PCPO communicating the same to the different Divisions under the Zone for due compliance. It is reiterated that the orders at Annexure A1, replaced by Annexure A12, are clearly legal and have been issued by the General Manager under Rule 124 of IREC. The framing of a transfer policy is within the domain of the administration and the applicants have no right to interfere with the same. The policy of transfer is formulated for smooth functioning of the administration. It also depends on the number of posts at a particular place available for manning and upon the exigency of service.
22. It is submitted that the applicants have no vested rights to be posted in a particular place and at particular time. The IDT/IRT transfers are being made within the 50% quota for direct recruits. The Rule 137(7) produced at Annexure A2 only deals with the percentage of filling up of vacancies by direct recruitment and by promotion. It has no connection whatsoever with the ratio betweeen direct recruits and IDT/IRT transferees. Further the paragraph 102-A produced at Annexure A3 cannot be read in isolation, without considering the general direction in paragraph 102, which deals with recruitment. There is no doubt that the IDT/IRT is permitted. However, as directed by this Tribunal, the quota for IDT/IRT in the direct recruit quota is to be fixed in advance to avoid misuse of such transfers on sympathetic grounds and to protect the interest of meritorious direct recruit candidates. The IDT/IRT cannot be permitted to sweep away the quota for direct recruitees. In fact the order produced at Annexure A4 in O.A 902/2010 and connected cases had laid down in paragraph 20 to consider a method for 26 keeping the balance between direct recruits and IDT transferees. After relying on this order in their O.A, it is submitted that it is unfortunate that the applicants are challenging the authority of General Manager to fix a ratio between the direct recruits and Inter Divisional Transferees. The suggestions made by this Tribunal at paragraphs 20 and 21 of Annexure A4 order is being implemented and the IDT transfers are being done duly observing the transfer policy. Further, it is also evident that these applicants in this OA are not the senior most at the time of filing the O.A to be considered for IDT. The respondents have produced the details of registration for IRT/IDT to Trivandrum Division as on 09.08.2021 as Annexure R1(b) where the applicants are at seniority Nos.23 to 30. Therefore, even if the O.A is to be allowed, as many as 22 persons above the applicants will have to be considered for IDT in compliance with the directions issued by this Tribunal.
23. In relation to the contention that the power vested in the General Manager is in relation to the Group C and Group D employees as a whole and as such, the rules cannot be exercised exclusively for a particular class of employees, the respondents submit that this is a misunderstanding of Rule 124 and that the attempt of the applicants is to mislead the Tribunal. The contention of the applicants that all Railway Employees constitute a homogenous class in the matter of service conditions and that the rules and orders relating to transfers/IDT for the group should be the same is not accepted. There are admittedly different categories of employees in the Railways. There cannot be a uniform pattern of service/transfer or other rules for safety category employees and those in the general category. 27 Further, there cannot be a uniform pattern for ministerial and non- ministerial category nor can there be a uniform pattern for the Engineering department and the Stores department. If a homogenous and uniform service conditions were intended to be maintained, there would not have been different sets of Recruitment Rules and other service conditions including working hours. Therefore, the contention that Annexure A1 or Annexure A12 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is clearly absurd and liable to be rejected.
24. It is further submitted that the applicants belong to the 'running' category, which as produced at Annexure A10 in the rejoinder is a Safety Category Post, directly connected with running of trains. The applicants cannot seek parity in service conditions as those attached to other categories. Hence framing a policy to suit a particular cadre of employees for operation feasibility cannot be termed as a negation of the equality clauses enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 on this ground as well. It is contended that no prayer for immediate transfer can be accepted. There is an excess operation in the post of ALPs. Further, there is no violation of recruitment rules under Paragraph 102 A of IREM and RBE No.24/2000 dated 08.02.2000 as the applicants will be placed only in the bottom seniority in the grades having the element of direct recruitment, once they are given orders for effecting IDT. They cannot claim that they are entitled for transfer against 100% direct recruitment vacancies. They also cannot claim seniority over direct recruits who join the cadre before issuing orders to the applicants, as seniority will be given from the date of joining cadre in a particular seniority unit. Since both channels are concurrent, the applicants 28 have no right to urge the administration to issue IRT/IDT orders before direct recruits join.
25. The applicants have reiterated their earlier contentions in the rejoinder and other statements/M.As filed by them. Learned Counsel for the applicant reiterates that the powers under Section 4(2) of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 only empowers the General Manager of Zonal Railway with the power of general superintendence and control of a Zonal Railway. This selection does not enable the General Manager to frame Rules relating to recruitment and conditions of service. Further, the Railway Board circulars have not permitted a General Manager to issue orders exclusively confined to the ALPs. No GM can issue directions inconsistent with the ones already in force. There is no ratio prescribed as is done in Annexures A1 and A12 under any of the Rules framed by the Railway Board for filling up of DR quota vacancies. The orders of the Railway Board are consistent with the IREM Chapter - I Section B Rule 137(7) (Annexure A2). No orders inconsistent with the Railway Board orders can be issued either by the 1st respondent or by the 2 nd respondent. Further expanding on these issues during oral submissions, learned Counsel for the applicant Shri T. C. Govindaswamy also brought to notice certain judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in relation to the powers of Railway Board vis-a-vis General Managers. He submitted that the Rules 123 and 124 were earlier covered by Rules 157-158 of the Railway Establishment Code Vol.I. Further, the Railway Establishment Code is issued under the provisions of Article 309, whereas the IREM is only a compilation of orders. In the matter of S. K. Chakraborty and others v Union of India and others [(1988) 3 SCC 575] 29 arising out of SLP No.3584 of 1987 decided on July 11, 1988, a Memorandum issued by a Workshop Superintendent was found to be inconsistent with pre-existing circulars of Railway Board and was in violation of Rule 158 of the Railway Establishment Code Volume-I. Hence, there has to be consistency between the Circulars/Memorandums issued by different agencies of the Railways. Further, in Haribans Misra and Others v Railway Board and Others [(1989) 2 SCC 84] in Civil Appeal No.1643 of 1984 decided on January 11, 1989 it was held that there can be no doubt that by virtue of Rule 157 of the Railway Establishment Code, the Railway Board has the power to frame Rules, but such rules must be framed with certain objects in view and must not be arbitrary. The Court is always entitled to examine whether a particular rule which takes away the vested rights of a railway employee or seriously affects him with retrospective effect, has been made to meet the exigencies of circumstances or has been made arbitrarily without any real objective behind it. Further, in Union of India and Others v M. Bhaskar and Others [(1996) SCC (L&S) 967] in Civil Appeal No.5410 of 1992 decided on May 6, 1996 relating to direct recruitment in intermediate grades, it has been laid down that Rule 157 (present Rule 123) only relates to the conditions of service and not to direct recruitment and in such cases, Railway Board has the power to frame the rules and the General Manager have no power.
26. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that the power of framing rules to affect direct recruitment is not envisaged under Rule 124, which only authorises the General Manager to issue instructions in relation to the Railway Employees already working under him but cannot affect 30 others who are desirous of joining the Railways and who are outside the system. The application of Rule 124 is only for the concerned Railway servants but cannot extend to those who are to be recruited to the service. Hence, by prescribing specific percentages as in Annexures A1 & A12, the General Manager is laying conditions on a class of people who are yet to join the Railways, where he has no such power to do so. In other words, he can at best only make rules or instructions for those who are within his area of the system and not for somebody who is outside the system who is wanting to join it or in other Divisions outside his zone seeking transfer to a Division within the zone. Countering this, learned SCGSC Smt. O. M. Shalina for the respondents submitted that it was the Tribunal which had directed the General Manager in O.A 1053/2017 to consider creating a formula incorporating a ratio for accommodating the contending segments She submitted that the applicants in that O.A, who were represented by the same Counsel as in this one, had not preferred any appeal and hence that order has become final. In any case she submits that Annexure A12 does not divert from any Rules or is beyond the power or jurisdiction of the General Manager. By giving an additional quota by Annexure A12, which is to the extent of almost 65% to IDT/IRT transferees, it only seeks to balance the interests of the two segments of the direct recruitment, in line with the difficult issues that were considered & contended by either side before this Tribunal in the earlier matters. Further, as has been constantly brought out by the respondents in all their contentions, it is Inter Divisional Transfers which is an exception to the process of direct recruitment, which is normally envisaged as appointment of fresh recruitees.She submits that the Rule 124 31 is not having the provision of general application unlike Rule 123. Hence, the General Manager has full powers in relation to making rules in regard to the railway servants under his control, as long as they are not inconsistent with any Rules made by the President or Ministry of Railways. By limiting the IDT/IRT percentage to 65% within the quota meant for direct recruitment for a division under his control, it cannot be held that the General Manager has in any way exceeded his powers under Rule 124. Further, she submitted that 35% of the DR Quota which is kept for the fresh appointees through the Railway Recruitment Board, cannot also be interpreted as exceeding the powers given to the General Manager. It cannot be stated to be interfering with the right of anybody outside the Railway system to be appointed as anybody outside the Railway system has only a right to be considered for appointment (but has no right for appointment) if he has cleared the recruitment process. Further such a person is liable to serve wherever he is posted. It is reiterated that there is no preferential rights given to IDT/IRT transferees. Further the Rules produced at Annexure A2 are in relation to the percentages of recruitment and have nothing to do with IDT/IRT. They have only provided that 50% plus the shortfall against Rule 137(1)(i), if any, should be filled by direct recruitment through the Railway Recruitment Boards.
27. We have carefully considered these contentions. After a full consideration, we do not find that there has been any violation of Rules in the IREM or provisions in the IREC by issuance of Annexures A1 or A12 orders. What is also significant, in our view, is also that in this O.A the Railway Board itself is a party (respondent no.5), as they were in the O.A 32 1053/2017 and connected O.As, wherein the direction for creating a ratio in relation to the IDT/IRT transferee and those freshly recruited from the RRBs was first given. The directions in O.A 1053/2017 were to the respondents as a whole which presumably included the Railway Board. The General Manager Southern Railway, Chennai had then issued the orders at Annexures A1 and A12 as a follow up. We have not seen any letter or any other communication produced by the applicants that the Railway Board has found fault or objected to the same. Hence, the contention that the vires of these orders is illegal and that the Railway Board only has the power to make such provisions, has to be considered against the fact that there is no apparent objection or opposition against these orders from the highest levels of the Railway Board.
28. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that even if the Railway Board does not object or is passive about the Annexures A1 or A12 orders it does not make it legal. However, after due consideration on this point, we do not find any specific illegality in the order. The Rule 137(1) of the IREM is also not affected, as the ratio of IDT/IRT transferees to the fresh recruitees is being ordered within the direct recruitment quota vacancies, which is to the extent of 50% of the vacancies. The IDT/IRT transferees were also originally recruitees through the RRBs who were posted in other divisions. In addition to this, learned Counsel for the party respondents 6 - 11 has filed an M.A submitting that all the applicants in the O.A have since already been approved, even after the Annexures A1 and A12 policy, for Inter Railway/Inter Division One way transfers as per orders issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, Thiruvananthapuram in order dated 33 29.05.2023, where they appear at Sl.Nos.21,22,24,25,26,28,30. This order produced by the party respondents reveals that the applicants were considered within the quota of 65% meant for inter divisional transfer under the orders at Annexure A12. He thus contended that the Annexure A12 order has not affected the applicants adversely.
29. Thus in light of the above facts, we are of the opinion that the contention that Circular of the General Manager, PCPO at Annexure A12 which has raised the IDT/IRT quota to 65% and also reduced the eligibility to register for such transfers from 5 years to 3 years, is illegal or does not adequately meet the demands of the staff who are seeking inter divisional transfer is not established. On the other hand, we find that it also meets the requirements for fresh DRQ/RRB candidates in a Division which is important. As noted it is not possible to fill a particular Division with only IDT/IRT transferees and still yet another Division only with fresh DRQ/RRB candidates. There has to be a balance between these two sets of direct recruitees, so that there are experienced Loco Pilots co-existing and training the freshers. Further, we note that this formula/ratio has been arrived at after intense discussion with the employee associations after efforts were made by the top Railway management at the Zonal level through their Senior Administrative Grade Officers Committee. This policy at Annexure A12 has come to be formulated only due to the huge IDT/IRT requests overwhelmingly aimed at only one Division, namely Thiruvananthapuram Division. The Railways thus not only had to balance the interest of its employees; at the same time, more importantly, it had to balance the interest of its customers. Most important is the question of 34 safety in the Railway system which has to be kept at top priority. The principle behind the working out of a ratio, as suggested by this Tribunal, was thus to ensure a fine balance between the induction of fresh recruits and the transfer of experienced personnel and that has been well maintained.
30. In regard to the contentions made regarding the applicability or powers given under the Rule 124 of the IREM, we do not find that the General Manager is barred by the rules from making provisions affecting only for a one class of employees and not others. There is nothing in the rules which prevents the General Manager from not making a rule of general application only a particular class of employees under his control. The discretion in such situations is best left to the General Manager, who has decided herein that in the class of the Assistant Loco Pilots under him, the interest of different groups have to be maintained. He has taken forward the directions of the Tribunal and worked out a formula in making a policy for one class of employees. In the process we do not find that he has not gone against any of the applicable Rules as is being contended by the applicants. In any case, as has been pointed out earlier, there is no Rule of general application in relation to the Rule 124. The Rule only empowers the General Manager to make rules for Group 'C' and Group 'D' under his control as long as they are not inconsistent with overall Railway Board or instructions or orders. The General Manager Southern Railway thus has every right to make rules or decide matters pertaining to a Division under him, even if the same affects movement of personnel coming from other Divisions or Zones outside his purview as the primary objective of the rule is aimed at planning the deployment of staff under him. Thus, we do not 35 find that what has been done by Annexures A1 and A12 orders is in any way against the overall Rules or instructions or orders of Railway Board in this regard. At the end of the day, there is much wisdom in the contention that an order which is generally accepted by the majority of employees should be allowed a chance to work itself into the system without obstruction. We note that these orders have been passed in consultation with the Associations of the employees and have clearly also not gone against the interest of the applicants, as evidenced by the orders passed recently in their case vide Annexure R6(1) dated 29.05.2023. It, therefore, should be given a fair chance to get general acceptance in the system.
31. In light of the above we do not allow OA No.180/170/2021. Consequentially, O.A No.180/484/2021 which is on very same issue also fails. In regard to the Contempt Petition CP No.180/13/2021 which was filed in relation to the appointment of 17 direct recruits from the RRB in the Trivandrum Division, we find that the explanation given by the respondents acceptable in relation to the circumstances under which these orders were passed soon after the interim order of this Tribunal dated 08.06.2021. We are thus closing the C.P with no directions on the respondents therein.
32. O.A Nos. 180/170/2021, 180/484/2021 are dismissed. C.P No.180/13/2021 is closed without directions. We make no order as to costs.
(Dated this the 20th day of July, 2023)
K. V. Eapen Justice Sunil Thomas
(Administrative Member) (Judicial Member)
bp
36
List of Annexures
O.A No.180/170/2021
Annexure A1- A true copy of the Letter No.P(5) 676/IV/IPO/2020 dated
30.11.2020, issued by the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A2- A true copy of the Railways Establishment Manual Section - B of
the Chapter - I.
Annexure A3- A true copy of the Recruitment Board Order R.B.E No.24/2000
dated 08.02.2000.
Annexure A4- A true copy of the order dated 17.02.2012 in O.A No.902/2010.
Annexure A5- A true copy of the order and M.A No.1065/12 in O.A 902/2010 and
connected cases dated 11.03.2013.
Annexure A6- True copy of the details of Registration for IRT/IDT as on
29.05.2019 published by Thiruvananthapuram Division. Annexure A7- True copy of the list for inter-divisional transfer to Thiruvananthapuram Division Letter No.SA/P.676/VI/IDT/Vol.XI dated 19.01.2021 issued by the Asst. Personnel Officer, Salem.
Annexure A8- True copy of the letter No.V/P 676/VI/IDT/IRT/LP/Vol.XII dated 29.12.2020 issued by the 4th respondent.
Annexure A9- True copy of the order bearing No.P(S)563/VI/ALP/Vol.IX dated 09.12.2019, issued by the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A10 series- True copy of the Railway Board Orders enlisting safety categories.
Annexure A11 series- True copy of the Railway Board orders regarding seniority of staff on transfer from one division from another.
Annexure A12- A true copy of the revised transfer Policy bearing No.P(S) 676/IV/JPO/2020 dated 21.03.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent. Annexure A13- A true copy of the office order bearing No.45/2022/Elec(OP) dated 27.10.2022.
Annexure A14- A true copy of the order bearing No.V/P.676/VI/IDT/IRT/ALP/104993 dated 02.01.2023. Annexure R1(a)- A true copy of the Order dated 26.09.2018 passed by this Tribunal in O.A 1053/2017 and connected cases.
Annexure R1(b)- A true copy of details of registration for IRT/IDT to Trivandrum Division as on 09.08.2021.
Annexure R6(a)- True copy of the relevant pages of the notification by the Railway Recruitment Board as notification CEN 01/2018.
Annexure R6(b)- True copy of the ranked list of ALP, category No.2 of CEN 01/2018 issued by the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board dated 31.01.2021. Annexure R6(c)- True copy of the appointment order issued as order No.V/P.268/VI/RG/ALP/Vol.II dated 09.03.2021 issued to the additional 6th respondent. Annexure R6(d)- True copy of the appointment order issued by the Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer/TVC as order No.V/P.268/VI/RG/ALP/Vol.II dated 09.03.2021. Annexure R6(e)- True copy of the appointment order issued as Order No.37/2021/Elec(OP) dated 18.08.2021.
Annexure R6(f)- True copy of the appointment order as Order No.J/P 268/V/PR/ALP/Vol.XVI issued by Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer/PGT dated 16.08.2021.
Annexure R6(g)- True copy of the corrigendum issued by the Divisional Personnel Officer as No.V/P.268/IV/2021/ALP dated 19.08.2021. Annexure R6(h)- True copy of the crew working details of the additional 6 th respondent from 12.08.2021 to 13.09.2021.
Annexure MA1- A true copy of the interim order dated 08.06.2021 in O.A No.180/170/2021.
Annexure MA R1(A)- A true copy of Memo No.P(S)676/IV/JPO/2020 dated 21.03.2022.
C.P No.180/13/2021 Annexure P1- A true copy of Interim order in O.A 180/170/2021 dated 08.06.2021 37 passed by the Tribunal.
Annexure P2- A true copy of Office Order No.24/2021/ELEC(OP) dated 15.06.2021 issued on behalf of the respondent.
O.A No.180/484/2021 Annexure A1- A true copy of the Letter No.P(S) 676/IV/JPO/2020 dated 30.11.2020, issued by the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A2- A true copy of Rule 137 of the Railways Establishment Manual Section - B of the Chapter - I. Annexure A3- A true copy of the Railway Board Order R.B.E No.24/2000 dated 08.02.2000.
Annexure A4- A true copy of the order dated 17.02.2012 in O.A No.902/2010 rendered by this Tribunal.
Annexure A5- A true copy of the order and M.A No.1065/12 in O.A 902/2010 and connected cases dated 11.03.2013 rendered by this Tribunal. Annexure A6- True copy of the details of Registration for IRT/IDT as on 29.05.2019 published by Thiruvananthapuram Division. Annexure A7- True copy of the Letter No.SA/P.676/VI/IDT/LP/Vol.XI dated 19.01.2021 issued by Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Salem. Annexure A8- True copy of the letter No.V/P 676/VI/IDT/IRT/LP/Vol.XII dated 29.12.2020 issued by the 4th respondent.
Annexure A9- True copy of the communication bearing No.P(S)563/VI/ALP/Vol.IX dated 09.12.2019, issued from the Office of the 2 nd respondent.
Annexure A10- True copy of the orders issued by the 1 st respondent, bearing No.P(Co-ord)/MIS reports dated 30.07.2021 along with Annexure. Annexure R1(a)- A true copy of the Order dated 26.09.2018 passed by this Tribunal in O.A 1053/2017 and connected cases.
Annexure R1(b)- A true copy of details of registration for IRT/IDT to Trivandrum Division as on 24.08.2021.
*****