Gujarat High Court
Union vs Om on 12 October, 2011
Bench: V. M. Sahai, Ks Jhaveri
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1733/2004 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1733 of 2004
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
UNION
OF INDIA & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
OM
PRAKASH NARAYAN & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MUKESH A PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
PH PATHAK for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 12/10/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)
1. The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 03.10.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in OA No. 60 of 1998 and the judgment and order dated 18.09.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in R.A. No. 25 of 2003 with M.A. No. 258 of 2003 in O.A. No. 60 of 1998.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Regional Labour Commissioner, Ahmedabad passed an order dated 30.04.1997 directing the Railway Administration to change the classification of Sms/ASMs working at different stations with effect from June 1994 from the category 'EI' to 'C'. The said order was challenged before the appellate authority under HOER and Jt. Secretary, Govt. of India by the Railway Administration. The said appellate authority passed an order dated 12.10.2000 directing that the matter should be reheard by Regional Labour Commissioner and fresh JJA should be conducted for these Railway Stations within four months.
2.1 The Regional Labour Commissioner, Ahmedabad passed an order dated 19.04.2001 whereby change of cadre is ordered but the date of effecting the change was shown as 01.12.2000 after considering all details. The said report had been considered by the Railway administration and accordingly a memorandum dated 05.11.2001 came to be issued.
2.2 Thereafter, the respondent herein preferred O.A. No. 60 of 1998 before the Tribunal basically seeking directions to implement 'C' Roster as per the order of the appellate authority. The Tribunal vide order dated 03.10.2002 allowed the application by drawing adverse inference and directed to implement the changes of classification of category from 'EI' to 'C' effective from June 1994.
2.3 The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order preferred Revision Application being RA No. 25 of 2003 with MA No. 258 of 2003 interalia praying for review of the order passed by the Tribunal. The said application came to be rejected by the Tribunal and being dissatisfied with the same the present petition is preferred before this Court.
3. Mr. Mukesh Patel, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered that Rule 3 of HOER provides criteria for determining the classification. The workload and attentiveness required depends upon the traffic load. He submitted that even the JJA has after considering the details reported that the change of classification in respective stations from Essentially Intermittent to C is to be applied but the effective date would be from 01.12.2000 as the traffic load had increased after 2000, however the Tribunal erred in effecting the date of change from the year 1994.
3.1 Mr. Patel further submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have discarded the finding of JJA particularly when even the applicant/respondents have accepted the increase in the traffic load after 2000 and the JJA arrived at the said decision after detailed consideration of the facts, provisions of Rule 3 of HOER and other various related factors. He submitted infact it could be said that the said finding of the JJA was in the form of consensus of even the applicants impliedly.
4. Mr. Pathak, learned advocate appearing for the respondents supported the orders passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the effect from the year 1994 was given pursuant to the order dated 30.04.1997 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. no. 35 of 1994. He submitted that the petitioners are trying to take advantage of their own administrative delay and are depriving the respondents of their legitimate rights.
5. After having heard learned advocates for both the sides and having perused the papers on record, it is clear that it is not in dispute that the Authority viz. RLC (C ) - Ahmedabad decided the appeal vide order dated 30.04.1997 directing the railway administration to change the classification of SM/ASM working at Viramdad, Bhatel etc for essentially intermittent to continuous with effect from June 1994 with all consequential benefits arising out of the said change from the said date. Thereafter, the said order of HOER and RLC ( C) Ahmedabad was challenged by the Railway Administration before the Appellate Authority and the authority vide order dated 12.10.2000 remanded the matter and directed that the matter should be reheard by RLC and fresh JJA should be conducted for these railway stations. Thereafter, job analysis was carried out twice by the competent authorities and pursuant to the same order dated 19.04.2001 was passed.
6. The contention that the workload was increased only after year 2000 is not in consonance with the observations made by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 35 of 1994. The Tribunal in para 5 of OA No. 60 of 1998 has observed as under:
"5. I find that the reason for adopting the date 1.12.2000 to give the effect to the classification of continuous category is neither valid nor reasonable. It cannot be forgotten that the matter was under
litigation right from 1994 and in the year 1994 HOER had already passed orders of classifying the villages as continuous C. This order of HOER was challenged before the appellate authority who had remanded the matter back to the HOER. If HOER had after remand of matter carried out fresh classification and given some orders those orders will have to be given effect from June 1994 as HOER was deciding the matter which was remanded to him. Hence the order dated 5.11.2001 deserves to be modified to the extent that the effect of the change in classification shall be given from June 1994 and not 1.12.2000."
7. We are in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted by the Tribunal hereinabove. Even the review authority has observed that the Tribunal though had directed both the parties to produce the relevant documents, in view of the failure of the railway authorities to produce the relevant documents, decision was arrived at on the material on record and therefore the authority did not accept the review applicant's contention that the appellate authority's order was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.
8. In the premises aforesaid, petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.
(V.M. SAHAI, J.) (K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top