Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Rajesh Bishnoi vs M/O Railways on 19 April, 2023
1
OA No. 342/2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
Original Application No. 342/2015
Order reserved on: 12.04.2023
Date of order: 19.04.2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, MEMBER (J)
Rajesh Bishnoi, S/o Barsingha Ram, Aged 25 years, R/o
Behind Samaj Kalyan Office, Near BSNL office, B.R Mirdha
College Road, Nagaur. ( Ex-traffic Khallasi, Control Office,
DRM Office, Ajmer division, Ajmer).
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Swami)
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Western
Railway, Jaipur.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager (Administration), North
Western Railway, Ajmer Division, Ajmer.
3. Senior Divisional Operating Manager, Ajmer Division,
Ajmer.
...Respondents
(By Adv: Shri V.D. Sharma)
2
OA No. 342/2015
ORDER
Per Mrs. Hina P. Shah The Original Application No. 342/2015 has been filed by the Applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:
(i) By an appropriate order this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 22.12.2014 (Annexure-A/7) demanding the amount of bond money/penalty of Rs.
10,19,798/- as well as order dated 23.03.2015 (Annexure-A/11) by which the representation for refund filed by the applicant has been rejected.
(ii) By an appropriate order this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 10,19,798/- charged as bond money/penalty with interest @ 18 per annum.
(iii) Any other order which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and 3 OA No. 342/2015 circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the applicant.
2. The facts as stated by the Applicant is that he was selected for the post of Traffic Khallasi in pay scale Rs. 5200- 20200/- + GP-Rs. 1800/- under sports quota and was given with a proposal for appointment of the said post vide letter dated 31.03.2014. Condition No. 4 was pertaining to medical fitness and for purpose of training he was required to fill a bond (Annexure-A/1). He was then sent for training for 29 days but no indemnity bond was got filled from him. Thereafter, successful training, he was appointed on the post of Khallasi and joined duty on 08.09.2014. Before his present appointment, he had also applied for the post of Assistant in Reserve Bank of India (RBI) under sports quota. He was called for interview by RBI for which NOC was provided vide letter dated 13.10.2014 by the Respondent Railways. Till the date of NOC neither any bond nor any terms and conditions were got executed by the Railways. Thereafter, RBI offered him appointment for the post of Assistant vide letter dated 10.12.2014 (Annexure-A/4). On 15.12.2014, Applicant tendered his resignation to Divisional Railway Manager (DRM), Ajmer, but the same was not accepted and he was required to fill a bond under duress and coercion. He was 4 OA No. 342/2015 informed that unless he fills the indemnity bond, his resignation will not be accepted. Thus, he filled the indemnity bond on 15.12.2014 as he was informed that till full amount of bond is not deposited, his resignation would not be accepted. Thus, Applicant has deposited an amount of Rs. 10,19,978/- which included pay and all other allowances including one month salary in lieu of resignation as his last date of joining in RBI was 24.12.2014. His financial condition was not enough as his father was only a Constable in Police, but he had to take huge loan for payment of bond amount else he could not join RBI without NOC from Railways. Thereafter, he made a representation dated 11.02.2015 for refund of the amount, but the same was rejected vide letter dated 20.03.2015 (Annexure-A/10). Thus, being aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary action of the Respondents so as to impose penalty of Rs. 10,19,798/- on the Applicant though he has received salary only for 3 months and 29 days of training, he has filed the present Original Application for redressal of his grievance.
3.a) Respondents have filed their reply and have not disputed the facts of the appointment of the Applicant and training period. They further state that the Applicant was allotted the post of Traffic Khallasi, Ajmer on 08.09.2014. On his application, he was granted NOC for interview in RBI for the 5 OA No. 342/2015 post of Assistant with certain conditions. At that relevant time, it was not brought into light that the Applicant has not submitted the service bond in accordance with the offer of appointment even by the Applicant else he would have been directed for submitting the service bond prior to issuance of NOC.
3.b) Respondents further state that the appointment of the Applicant in sportsman quota was made under special provision without following the Railway Recruitment Commission Regular Process and according to the Railway Board letter No. 2010/E/Sports 4(1)1 Policy dated 31.12.2010 RBE/189/2010 para 8.4, the policy instructions provide that under sports quota, the recruited candidate has to submit the service bond essentially and mandatorily. Since the Applicant has submitted his application on 15.12.2014 to accept his resignation with immediate effect and has given his consent to submit his pay allowance in writing, therefore, appropriate order was passed and he was directed to deposit the requisite amount vide letter dated 22.12.2014. Thus, as the amount deposited by the Applicant at the time of resignation is in accordance with law and his representation was also replied accordingly. Thus, as there is no illegality, arbitrariness in the action of the Respondents which is as per rules, the present Original Application deserves to be dismissed. 6 OA No. 342/2015
4. Applicant has not filed any rejoinder rebutting the contentions raised by the Respondents.
5. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The short question which requires to be considered in the present matter is whether the bond money was accepted by the Railways as per rules.
7. The crux of the case is that the Applicant had applied under sports quota in lieu of the advertisement for the post of Traffic Khallasi. He has accepted the offer of appointment dated 31.03.2014 (Annexure-A/1) accepting all the rules and conditions with regard to the said appointment. It was made clear in the said offer that he has to fill a bond where he has to undergo training for the said post. He was then sent for training of 29 days from 01.08.2014 to 29.08.2014 at Ajmer. After successful completion of training, he was appointed on the post of Traffic Khallasi in pay band Rs. 5200-20200/- with Grade Pay Rs. 1800/- vide letter dated 08.09.2014.
8. While working on the post of Traffic Khallasi he sought NOC from the Divisional Railway Manager on 23.09.2014 for appearing in interview of Reserve Bank of India. The said NOC 7 OA No. 342/2015 was granted to the Applicant with certain conditions on 13.10.2014. He was offered appointment by RBI for the post of Assistant vide letter dated 10.12.2014. Thereafter, he requested the DRM, Ajmer by submitting his written consent to deposit the pay and allowances as per the conditions of the service bond by making an application on 15.12.2014 to immediately accept his resignation. On the request application of the Applicant, his resignation was accepted w.e.f. 23.12.2014 as he had deposited the calculated amount of Rs. 10,19,798/- which was as per the terms of offer accepted by the Applicant. Thereafter, he submitted his consent and deposited the amount on being satisfied with the conditions. But on 11.02.2015, Applicant made a representation to the Railways vide letter dated 11.02.2015 for refund of the amount of indemnity amounting to Rs. 10,19,798/- illegally and arbitrarily imposed on him. The said representation was replied by the Respondents vide letter dated 20.03.2015 (Annexure-A/1) and which is impugned by the Applicant in the present Original Application.
9. We note the fact that the appointment of the Applicant was made under special provision i.e. without following the regular process of recruitment provided by the Railway Recruitment Commission and according to the Railway Boards Letter No. 2010/E/Sports 4 (1)1 Policy dated 31.12.2010 8 OA No. 342/2015 RBE/189/2010, wherein Rule 8.4 under the Head, "Service Bond" for persons recruited against sports quota reads as under:-
The "Service Bond" period for the persons recruited against sports quota shall be of five years. At the time of his/her appointment, the sportsperson shall fill and sign the Bond, in the format attached at Annexure-IV.
10. Thus, as per the Service Bond, it was clear that the persons appointed under sports quota was required to serve the Railways at least for a period of five years and if he wishes to leave the service prior to five years, then he will have to deposit the salary and allowances of five years. Accordingly, as per the calculation of his salary and other allowances for 60 months came to Rs. 1003080/- and one month salary being Rs. 16718/- totaling to Rs. 10,19,978/-, the Applicant was required to deposit said amount as per rules.
11. We find that the Applicant wanted immediate resignation from the post of Traffic Khallasi as he intended to join as Assistant with the Reserve Bank of India. But as per rules, NOC would only be granted if he had completed all the formalities before resignation from the said post which included the Bond along with its conditions. The Applicant 9 OA No. 342/2015 vide his letter dated 15.12.2014 agreed to make the payments as per rules as he was getting better opportunity as mentioned in his letter (Annexure-R/2). Thus, action of the Respondents cannot be faulted as the same is legal and justified.
12. Coming to the grounds raised by the Applicant, we do not find them to be sustainable in eyes of law. After getting the offer for the post of Traffic Khallasi, he was aware that he has not undergone regular process of selection and that he has got appointment under sports quota and was also aware of the fact that he has to fill a bond of service of 5 years and he has accepted all the terms and conditions and then joined the post. He cannot thereafter turn around and say that he has not given the bond voluntarily as he has already given his resignation voluntarily before the specified period of five years or about imposing a hefty penalty as he has received only 3 months salary and 29 days training from the Department. We find that as per Railway Board letter dated 31.12.2010 and its instructions mentioned in the same, Railway authorities have taken appropriate steps and action and have accepted the resignation of the Applicant prior to 5 years of his service and Applicant has willingly abided by the terms of the Bond and deposited the requisite amount as calculated.
10OA No. 342/2015
13. Thus, in view of the discussions and observations made above, the impugned order in challenge dated 20.03.2015 (Annexure-A/1) as well as order dated 22.12.2014 (Annexure-A/7) does not deserve any interference as we find the action of the Respondents to be as per rules and justified. Thus, Original Application being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, same is dismissed. No costs.
(Hina P. Shah) (Dinesh Sharma) Member (J) Member (A) /ysm/