Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Ramakant Srivastava vs Union Of India on 4 March, 2014
(Reserved)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH,
CIRCUIT SITTING : BILASPUR
Original Application No.809 of 2009
Jabalpur, this Tuesday, the 04th day of March, 2014
Honble Mr. Justice Dhirendra Mishra, Judicial Member
Honble Mr. G.P.Singhal, Administrative Member
1. Ramakant Srivastava, S/o Shri S.P.Shrivastava,
Aged about 36 years, Working as Junior Engineer (I) (Bridge)
South East Central Railway, Shahdol-484001 (M.P.)
2. R.K.Mishra, S/o Shri Ramji Mishra,
Aged about 39 years, Working as Junior Engineer (I)(Bridge)
South East Central Railway, Raipur-492001 (C.G.) - Applicants
(By Advocate Shri Anshul R.Shrivastava)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India, Through : The General Manager,
South East Central Railway, Bilaspur Zone,
Headquarter Office, Bilaspur 495001 (Chhattisgarh).
2. The Chief Personnel Officer, Headquarter Office,
South East Central Railway, Bilaspur 495001 (Chhattisgarh)
3. Mr. Mahesh Morchhale, Working as Section Engineer (Bridge)
South East Central Railway, Bilaspur-495001 (Chhattisgarh)
4. Mr. Naresh Kumar, Working as Junior Engineer-I (Bridge)
South East Central Railway, Gondia 441607 (Maharashtra)
5. Mr. Rakesh Srivastava, Working as Section Engineer (Bridge)
South East Central Railway, Raipur-492001 (Chhattisgarh)
6. Mr. A.K.Gupta, Working as Junior Engineer (I)(Bridge)
South East Central Railway, Nainpur (PO) 481776,
District : Mandla (Madhya Pradesh)
7. Mr. Prabal kumar Dwivedi, Working as Junior Engineer (I)(Bridge)
South East Central Railway, Nagpur-440001. -Respondents
(By Advocate Shri Praveen K Das for official respondents and Shri S.K.Nandy for respondents Nos. 3 & 5)
(Date of reserving the order: 07.01.2014)
ORDER
By G.P.Singhal, AM.-
The applicants have filed this Original Application, seeking direction to the respondents to retain their seniority as J.E.-II(Bridge) and J.E.-I(Bridge) over and above the private respondents Nos. 3 to 7 with all consequential benefits.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants were recruited as Apprentice Bridge Inspector Grade III, i.e. J.E.-II, through Railway Recruitment Board (in short RRB) Bhubaneswar, vide their Employment Notice No.2/93 dated 8.4.1993. After their selection, they were allowed to join in service on 20.01.1994 and 24.1.1994 in the construction organization at Nagpur and Raipur of South East Central Railway (in short SECR). The private respondents Nos.3 to 5 were also recruited for the same post through RRB Bhopal vide their Employment Notice No.1/92 and they reported for duty on 13.5.1994, 18.5.1994 and 25.4.1994. They were immediately sent for two years initial training and on completion of training, the respondents Nos.3 and 4 were posted in the working posts on 18.7.1996 and 15.4.1997. As regards to the private respondents Nos. 6 & 7 is concerned, they too were recruited against Employment Notice No.2/93 by RRB Bhubaneswar and joined in service on 24.1.1994 and 20.01.1994.
3. The applicant No.2 and private respondent No.6 had preferred Original Application No.401/2002 before this Tribunal, praying for direction to the respondents to allot lien to them and fix their seniority in the cadre of Open Line Establishment at par with other batch-mates basing on merit/seniority order of select list furnished to respondents by RRB. This Original Application was disposed of vide the order dated 8.12.2003 with the direction to the respondents to maintain the lien of the applicants therein w.e.f. 24.01.1994, and to also fix their seniority in accordance with rules and laws.
4. The respondents issued Provisional Seniority List of JE-II as on 15.06.2004 (Annexure A-5) in which, the applicants Nos.1 & 2 were shown on top, while the private respondents Nos. 3, 4 & 6 were shown below them. This seniority list was challenged by the private respondents Nos. 3 & 4 by filing Original Application No.1128/2004, which was disposed of vide the order dated 19.9.2005 (Annexure A-9) with the following direction:
5. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the seniority list dated 15.6.2004 (Annexure A-1) and the order dated 19.10.2004 (Annexure A-2) are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to fix the seniority of the applicants as well as private respondents in accordance with the provisions of IREM and other rules and instructions issued by the Government from time to time within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. Thereafter, the respondents issued Revised Provisional Seniority List (Annexure A-17), wherein, the private respondents Nos. 3 to 6 have been shown above the applicants Nos. 1 & 2. The applicants preferred representation against this seniority list and not getting the desired response, filed OA No.302/2008 before this Tribunal. This OA was disposed of vide the order dated 4.5.2009 with the direction to the respondents to determine the seniority in the cadre concerned finally, and not to continue with the Provisional Seniority List. The applicant filed Review Application No.26/2009 against this order before this Tribunal, which was dismissed vide the order dated 29.6.2009. In compliance of the order dated 4.5.2009 ibid, the respondents have finally published the seniority list of JE-I(Br.) as on 7.4.2008/26.10.2009 (Annexure A-25), in which, apart from the private respondents Nos. 3 to 6, private respondent No.7 has also been shown over and above the applicants.
6. The contention of the applicants is that they had been posted on working post w.e.f. 20.01.1994 and 24.01.1994. Thus, even if two years training period is added to their date of joining, as they did not under-go training and thus, their training period was deemed to be curtailed to that extent by the respondents in the exigency of service, in view of the provision of para 302 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual (in short IREM), their effective date of joining on the working post will come to 20.01.1996 and 24.01.1996. As against this, the date of joining on working post for private respondents Nos. 3 and 4, as shown in the seniority list of JE-I (Br.) (Annexure A-25) is 18.7.1996 and date of joining of private respondent No.5 is 15.4.1997. Thus, in view of para 302 of IREM, the applicants deserve to be placed over and above the private respondents.
7. The applicants further submitted that in regard to lien of applicant No.2, the order dated 8.12.2003 of this Tribunal, passed in OA No.401/2002, should be implemented, as it has not been challenged by the respondents anywhere and thus attained finality. According to this order, the lien of applicant No.2 has been ordered by the Tribunal to be fixed w.e.f. 21.4.1994.
8. The official respondents, in their reply, submitted that this Tribunal vide its order dated 19.09.2005, passed in OA No.1128/2004, quashed the Provisional Seniority List dated 19.10.2004, which was showing applicants Nos. 1 and 2 above the private respondents, and directed the respondents to fix the seniority of the applicants, as well as the private respondents in accordance with the provisions of IREM and other rules and instructions. Therefore, seniority list has been finalized as per the provisions of para 306 of IREM, which provides that, Candidates selected for appointment at an earlier selection shall be senior to those selected later irrespective of the dates of posting except in the case covered by paragraph 305 above. Since, the applicants are not covered by paragraph 305 of IREM, their seniority has been fixed according to para 306 of IREM. It is undisputed that the applicants were recruited against the Employment Notice No.2/93, dated 8.4.1993, while the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were recruited in the same post through RRB, Bhopal against the Employment Notice No.1/92. Thus, the private respondents Nos. 3 to 5, who belong to earlier selection were entitled to be placed above the applicants in the seniority list.
9. The private respondents Nos. 3 and 5 have also submitted their reply, which is more or less on the lines similar to that of the official respondents.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents annexed therewith.
11. The issue involved in this Original Application is regarding applicability of appropriate provisions of IREM for deciding the seniority. The relevant para 302, 305 and 306 of IREM are reproduced 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 the 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 criterian 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 promotee and direct recruits among themselves. When the dates of entry into a grade of promoted railway servants and direct recruits are the same they should be put in alternate positions, the promotee being senior to the direct recruits, maintaining inter-se-seniority of each group.
Note:-(i) 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.
(ii) The provision contained in Note(i) above will also apply to the Inter Apprentices and departmentally selected candidates against the quotas prescribed in certain categories to be filled by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (Such as 10% in the case of Traffic and Commercial Apprentices).
305. When, however, a candidate whose seniority is to be determined under paragraphs 303 and 304 above cannot join duty within a responsible time after the receipt of order of appointment, the appointing authority may determine his seniority by placing him below all the candidates selected at the same examination, who have joined within the period allowed for reporting to duty or even below candidates selected at subsequent examination/selection who have joined before him.
306. Candidates selected for appointment as an earlier selection shall be senior to those selected later irrespective of the dates of posting except in the case covered by paragraph 305 above.
12. It is evident from bare reading of para 302 of IREM that Note (i) is applicable in the cases where training period is curtailed. As against this, the applicants did not attend any training. On the other hand, para 306 only excludes the instances covered under para 305, which is applicable in those cases where employee did not join duty within responsible time limit. Thus, the applicants were not covered by the exclusion of para 305 and their seniority had to be fixed as per the provisions of para 306.
13. The learned counsel for the applicants also raised the issue of grant of lien to applicant No.2 w.e.f. 24.1.1994. However, the issue of seniority position of an employee is different from the date of his lien. Thus, we do not find any fault in fixation of applicants seniority vis-`-vis private respondents Nos.3 to 7 in the seniority list of JE-I(Br.) dated 26.10.2009 and the prayer for retaining the applicants seniority over and above the private respondents, made by the applicants in this OA, cannot be granted.
14. Thus, the OA is dismissed with no order on costs.
(G.P.Singhal) (Dhirendra Mishra) Administrative Member Judicial Member am 6 OA 809/2009 Page 6 of 6