Kerala High Court
P.Govindan Namboothiri vs Union Of India on 22 October, 2019
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran, V.G.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 30TH ASWINA, 1941
OP (CAT).No.8 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 607/2017 DATED 22-11-2018 OF
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONERS:
1 P.GOVINDAN NAMBOOTHIRI,AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.PADMANABHAN NAMBOOTHIRI, SENIOR TECHNICIAN, MEMU
SHED, SOUTHERN RAILWAY/QUILON, (THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DIVISION), RESIDING AT SOUPARNIKA, CHERUKUDAKL ILLAM,
PONAKAM, MAVELIKKARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-
690101.
2 B.SURAJ KUMAR,AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.B.BHASKARAN, SENIOR TECHNICIAN, MEMU SHED,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY/QUILON, (THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DIVISION), RESIDING AT AZHIKATHUVELI, SANATHANAPURAM
P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN- 688003.
3 B.SREEKUMAR,AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.BHAGEERATHAN NAIR, TECHNICIAN I, MEMU SHED,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY/QUILON, (THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DIVISION), RESIDING AT SREENILAYAM, VAYALA NORTH,
MARIAPURAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN- 689513.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY
SMT.KALA T.GOPI
SRI.B.NAMADEVA PRABHU
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE,
PARK TOWN P.O, CHENNAI- 600003.
2 THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN
P.O., CHENNAI- 600003.
OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019,
232/2018 & 195/2019 ::2::
3 THE DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, SALEM DIVISION, SALEM-5.
4 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695014.
5 S.KRISHNAN,AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.C.SANKARAN, SENIOR TECHNICIAN, ELECTRICAL LOCO
SHED, ERODE, RESIDING AT PUTHENPURA, KATTUPARAMBIL,
KUZHALMANNAM, PALGHAT- 678702.
6 K.R.NAJMUDIN,AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.M.K.ABDUL RAZAK, SENIOR TECHNICIAN, ELECTRICAL
LOCO SHED, ERODE, RESIDING AT SABANA MANZIL,
VATTAPARAMBU, THENGARA POST, PALGHAT- 678761.
7 GIREESHKUMAR,AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.KUNJIKRISHNAN, SENIOR TECHNICIAN, ELECTRICAL
LOCO SHED, ERODE, RESIDING AT VIRIPPIL HOUSE,
MYTHRI, EAST DEVAGIRI, KOZHIKODE- 673008.
8 S.SREEJITH,AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.SUBRAMANIANM, TECHNICIAN II, ELECTRICAL LOCO
SHED, ERODE, RESIDING AT PULARI, SREEDHANYA NAGAR,
KALLEKULANGARA, OLAVAKKODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
678002.
9 P.S.SUDISH,AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.P.M.SOMAN, TECHNICIAN II, ELECTRICAL LOCO SHED,
ERODE, RESIDING AT PARATHARAYIL HOUSE, ARAKULAM
P.O., IDUKKI- 685591.
10 K.V.SREEJITH,AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.BALASUBRAMANIAM, JUNIOR ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL
LOCO SHED, ERODE, RESIDING AT 6/115, SRUTHY,
SEKHARIPURAM, PALGHAT- 678010.
R1-4 BY SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN, SC, RAILWAYS
R1-4 BY SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SENIOR PANEL,RAILWAYS
R5-6, R8-10 BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
R5-6, R8-10 BY ADV. SHRI.NITHINDEV C.K
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2019,
ALONG WITH OP (CAT).232/2018, OP (CAT).195/2019, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019,
232/2018 & 195/2019 ::3::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 30TH ASWINA, 1941
OP (CAT).No.232 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 604/2017 DATED 22-11-2018 OF
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONER/S:
1 P.DIVAKARAN, AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.P.KUNHIRAMAN, SENIOR TECHNICIAN, MEMU SHED
SOUTHERN RAILWAY/PALAKKAD DIVISION, RESIDING AT
NEELAMBARI, PRATHEEKSHA NAGAR, 3RD LINE, OTTURKKAD,
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, POST PALAKKAD-678 731.
2 SHYBU.K., AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.KUMARAN.K., SENIOR TECHNICIAN, MEMU SHED
SOUTHERN RAILWAY/PALAKKAD DIVISION, RESIDING AT
PERUMBALLYKANDI HOUSE, MEDIAL COLLEGE P.O.,
KOZHIKODE-673 008.
3 M.ANANDA PADMANABHAN,AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.V.MUTHUSAMY, SENIOR TECHNICIAN, MEMU SHED
SOUTHERN RAILWAY/PALAKKAD DIVISION, RESIDING AT 58-
A, KANNIAPA KONAR STREET, CHETTIPALAYAM ROAD,
PODANUR POST, COIMBATORE-641 023.
4 SIJO JOSEPH, AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.E.J.JOSEPH, TECHNICIAN GR.I., MEMU SHED
SOUTHERN RAILWAY/PALAKKAD DIVISION, RESIDING AT
ILLICKAL HOUSE, N.S.S. P.O.VRINDAVAN NAGAR,
PALAKKAD-678 008.
5 M.V.VINESH, AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.M.P.VIJAYAN, TECHNICIAN GR.II., MEMU SHED
SOUTHERN RAILWAY/PALAKKAD DIVISION, RESIDING AT
MANUPPARAMBIL HOUSE, THUMBOOR P.O., THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN-680 662.
OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019,
232/2018 & 195/2019 ::4::
6 T.RAJESH, AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.T.VASU, TECHNICIAN GR.II., MEMU SHED SOUTHERN
RAILWAY/PALAKKAD DIVISION, RESIDING AT 129-B,
RAILWAY QUARTERS HEMAMBIKA NAGAR, RAILWAY COLONY,
PALAKKAD-678 009.
BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIKUMAR (GOPINATHAN NAIR)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PART TOWN
P.O., CHENNAI-600 003.
2 THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER,
SOUTH RAILWAY HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O.,
CHENNAI-600 003.
3 THE DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, SALEM DIVISION, SALEM-636 005.
4 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD DIVISION, PALAKKAD-678
002.
5 THE DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER MEMU SHED,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD DIVISION, PALAKKAD-678
002.
6 S.KRISHNAN,S/O.SANKARAN, AGED 58 YEARS,
SR.TECHNICIAN, ELECTRICAL LOCO SHED, ERODE,
RESIDING AT PUTHENPURA, KATTUPARAMBIL,
KUZHALMANNAM, PALGHAT-678 571.
7 K.R.NAJMUDIN,S/O.M.K.ABDUL RAZAK, AGED 46 YEARS,
SR.TECHNICIAN, ELECTRICAL LOCO SHED, ERODE,
RESIDING AT SABANA MANZIL, VATTAPARAMBU, THENKARA
POST, PALGHAT-678 582.
8 GIREESH KUMAR,AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.P.KUNJIL KRISHNAN,
SR.TECHNICIAN, ELECTRICAL LOCO SHED, ERODE,
RESIDING AT VIRIPPIL HOUSE, MYTHRI EAST, DEVAGIRI,
KOZHIKODE-673 008.
9 S.SREEJITH,AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SUBRAMANIAM,
TECHNICIAN-II, ELECTRICAL LOCO SHED, ERODE,
RESIDING AT PULARI, SREEDHRNYA NAGAR, OLAVAKKOD,
PALAKKAD-678 002.
OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019,
232/2018 & 195/2019 ::5::
10 P.S.SUDHISH,AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.P.M.SOMAN,
TECHNICIAN-II, ELECTRICAL LOCO SHED, ERODE,
RESIDING AT PARATHARAYIL HOUSE, ARAKULAM P.O.,
IDUKKI-685 588.
11 K.V.SREEJITH,AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.BALASUBRAMANIAM,
JUNIOR ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL LOCO SHED, ERODE,
RESIDING AT 6/155, SRUTHY, SEKHARIPURAM, PALGHAT-
678 010.
12 P.S.PADMANABHAN,
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.P.SIVASHANKARAN, SENIOR
TECHNICIAN, MEMU SHED, SOUTHERN RAILWAY/PALAKKAD
DIVISION, RESIDING AT NO.15/13, ANBU NAGAR, FIRST
STREET, VADAVALLI ROAD, EDAYAR PALAYAM, COIMBATORE-
641 025.
R1-5 BY SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SENIOR PANEL,RAILWAYS
R6-7, R9-11 BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2019,
ALONG WITH OP (CAT).195/2019, OP (CAT).8/2019, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019,
232/2018 & 195/2019 ::6::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 30TH ASWINA, 1941
OP (CAT).No.195 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 581/2019 DATED 02-08-2019 OF
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONER/S:
VINOD.M.P
AGED 45 YEARS
SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER(SSE) MEMU SHED, SOUTHERN
RAILWAY/PALAKKAD DIVISION RESIDING AT VINOD BHAVAN,
CHUNDAMPATTA, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679337
BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIKUMAR (GOPINATHAN NAIR)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAIWLAYS,
'RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001
2 THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN
.P.O, CHENNAI-600003
3 THE DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, SALEM DIVISION, SALEM-636005
4 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD DIVISION, PALAKKAD-
678002
R1-4 BY SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SENIOR PANEL,RAILWAYS
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2019,
ALONG WITH OP (CAT).232/2018, OP (CAT).8/2019, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019,
232/2018 & 195/2019 ::7::
JUDGMENT
[OP (CAT).8/2019, OP (CAT).232/2018, OP (CAT).195/2019 ] Dated this the 22nd day of October 2019 Vinod Chandran, J.
The petitioners are the applicants before the Tribunal who impugn orders rejecting their claims for retention in the MEMU-Sheds (Mainline Electrical Multi Unit) at Quilon and Palakkad. They were promoted from the post they held at the MEMU-Sheds and on pinpointing of the specific post in which they have to join; where directed to be repatriated to Erode within Salem Division from where they were originally appointed to the MEMU-Sheds in Kerala. The Tribunal by the impugned order found that the applicants were only on deputation and this was following a well meaning measure on the part of the Railways to enable Keralites to have short duration postings within the native state. A decision of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal was also OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::8::
noticed which directed identification of the promotion post for the purpose of enabling the Juniors in the other division to avail of the same benefits, the petitioners herein obtained, of short duration home tenure.
2. The petitioners assert that there was no deputation and their selection was to a specific cadre which now stands closed (meaning a distinct cadre created with determination of inter-se seniority of those belonging to that particular cadre and separate avenues for promotion) and hence there cannot be any repatriation. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in O.P.(CAT)232/2018 and 295 of 2019 that the nature of the appointments to the MEMU-Sheds at Quilon and Palakkad substantially differed and hence the issue may be considered separately. We have to immediately notice that no such distinction was argued before the Tribunal as is seen from the impugned order. Nevertheless we agreed to OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::9::
the suggestion of the Counsel in order to not shut out any legal argument.
3. Sri T.C Govindaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in OP(CAT) No. 8 of 2019, who are posted at the MEMU-Shed at Quilon points out the manner in which their selection was carried out as per Annexure A2 to A4 produced in the Original Application. It is contended that options were invited from employees and after due selection to various posts available at the MEMU-Shed Quilon, they were appointed, initially retaining their lien in the parent division. However, retention of such lien was to continue for two years or till such time the cadre is closed; the last expression meaning the formation of a specific cadre with promotional avenues within the Division itself. While they were continuing at the MEMU-Sheds they were promoted as per Annexure A5 and subject to pinpointing of posts they were granted upgradation/promotion on an 'as OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::10::
is where is basis'. While they were so continuing Annexures A1 and A2 were issued pinpointing their promotional posts in Erode coming within Salem Division and directing repatriation to their parent Division. It is also argued that if they do not join the promotional posts the only consequence is invocation of Rule 224 of IREM and Paragraph 13(i) of Master Circular No.31. This would result in their waiving their right for consideration of promotion for a period of one year and nothing more. Annexure A7 is also pointed out to argue that there is a cadre closure directed by that communication and the persons who were selected and appointed to the MEMU-Sheds were directed to exercise option to return to their parent cadre before 27.04.2017. The petitioners have not exercised such option and hence they have to be continued in the post. It is also submitted that there was no stay granted in the Original application and hence the respondents OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::11::
repatriated the petitioners by order produced additionally as Annexure A10 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal refused to stay such proceedings and the petitioners approached this Court wherein there was a stay granted. There is also a distinction drawn of MEMU- Sheds and Trip-Sheds to point out that the cadre closure is effected for the MEMU-Sheds alone.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Railways, Sri S. Radhakrishnan however, points out that the distinction attempted to be projected of Trip-Sheds and MEMU-Sheds in reality is absent since one is for the Electric Locos and the other for the MEMU Trains and the same is irrelevant to consider the issue arising here.
It is also argued that repatriation is essential to join the pinpointed posts. The learned Standing Counsel would also point out, on the basis of Annexure R1(f), that Annexure A7 was never implemented. The cadre OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::12::
restructuring is now being carried out and as of now the Railways intend to have a separate cadre insofar as the posts in which the petitioners are continuing so as to put an end to such litigation. It is argued especially referring to an earlier order of the Tribunal at Ext.R1(g) that the present litigation has its genesis in the well intentioned scheme formulated to provide a short tenure for Keralites within their native state. This has backfired with the short tenure postings attempted to be converted to regular cadre postings. The unreasonable claims have put the measure into jeopardy, prejudicing the other juniors who were also desirous of enjoying the short tenure in the native State.
5. On the present incumbents being promoted, two Technicians waiting for home posting,approached the CAT at Chennai, who directed the Railways to pin-point the posts to which those promoted on 'as is where is basis' are to join and ensure the deputations OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::13::
to the vacancies arising be carried out strictly on priority basis. It is specifically pointed out that the selection and appointment of the petitioners in MEMU- Sheds were a mere deputation and their lien in the Salem Division even now continues. It is pointed out from Annexure A5 that the petitioners were promoted by that order, issued again by the Divisional Officer of the Salem Division. The seniority list produced at Annexure R1(b)and R1(c) is specifically referred to, to contend that as on 30.09.2013 and 12.01.2017 the petitioners were shown in the seniority list of the Salem Division. It is contended that the mere refusal to join the pinpointed post would not enable the petitioners to continue in the MEMU-Sheds since the Railways had decided to repatriate them to their original division. The Railways is competent so to do when there has been no cadre closure. The petitioners are assigned seniority in a cadre in which is included, the OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::14::
posts in which they have retained the lien. The pinpointed posts for their promotion also are in the cadre of Salem Division.
6. We see from Annexure A2 that volunteers were called from the MEMU-Sheds and the Trip-Sheds, where they were deputed to work, for the purpose of selection to the post in the MEMU-Shed at Quilon. In Annexure A2 itself it is clarified that the promotion will be based on the original seniority in the Division/Unit until further modification and changes in the maintenance of the Cadre. The selected employees were also permitted to retain their lien in the parent division ie:
in Salem. Annexure A3 and A4 are the specific orders of appointment to the newly created posts which also specifies that the employees would retain their lien in the respective units till the cadre is closed. Annexure A4 has a similar condition with an additional one of the lien being maintained for a period of two years or till cadre is closed. Hence we OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::15::
can only understand the lien being retained until the cadre is closed. We have to immediately notice even then, that there is no right on the applicants to be retained on cadre closure since always they could be repatriated and transfers sought from eligible employees.
7. Annexure A7 was heavily relied on by the petitioners; but we have to reckon Annexure R1(f) which is also issued by the Chief Personal Officer in which Annexure A7 is read as the first paper. Considering the options sought for from the employees as also of the Court case pending in the Madras Bench of the Tribunal, the Divisions were advised not to take any further steps inter alia with respect to the cadre of MEMU, Palakkad and Quilon. Hence it cannot be said that by Annexure A7 the cadre has been closed.
8. We also notice Annexure A5 promotion order issued to the petitioners in which the first petitioner is said to be at OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::16::
Sl.No.2 and the 2nd petitioner at Sl.No.18. The said order has been issued by the Divisional Personal Officer Salem. The seniority list at Annexure R1(b) is also of Salem Division and petitioners 1 and 2 are at Sl.Nos.2 and 20. Annexure R1(c) is the provisional seniority list as on 02.01.2017 in the promoted posts wherein the petitioners are seen at Sl. Nos. 16,31 and 107, again of the Salem Division. The petitioners could not have been considered for promotion within Salem Division, unless their lien with that Division was retained. The petitioners also accepted the promotion and the financial upgradation on an 'as is where is basis' without demur and enjoyed the benefits. Only when they were repatriated to their parent cadre for joining the higher post, they turned around and claimed cadre closure of MEMU-Shed Quilon; which if materialized the petitioners would not be entitled for promotion within the Salem Division.
OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::17::
9. On such reasoning, we find that the petitioners were deputed to the MEMU-Sheds at Quilon and they retained their lien at the parent cadre in Salem Division. While they were continuing at MEMU-Shed, Quilon they were promoted as is evident from Annexure A5. Since pinpointing of the posts in which they have to join takes time they were allowed upgradation/promotion on 'as is where is basis'; ie: enabled the financial benefits of the promoted post, while being continued in their lower posts; till the posts to which they are to be promoted is identified or pinpointed. They hence continued, with the additional monetary benefits at MEMU-Shed Quilon, subject only to the pinpointing of posts. When pinpointing of the promoted posts were carried out, Annexure A1 series of orders were issued repatriating them to the parent divisions at Erode for the purpose of joining the pinpointed posts in the promoted cadre.
10. We cannot understand the OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::18::
consequence of the refusal to join the pinpointed posts, as stated in Annexure A1 series, to be merely of waiver of promotion, enabling the petitioners to continue in MEMU- Sheds at Quilon. Even if they do not accept the pinpointed posts they could be repatriated from the lower post to Erode within Salem Division, since they were brought to Kerala only on deputation. We also refer to Annexure- G for the exposition of the Scheme formulated for temporary transfer to the home State, with the concurrence of the staff federation, whose claim for a definite tenure of 5 years to ensure equal distribution of the benefit to all interested persons also being permitted. The Tribunal also had at that point frowned upon the attempt of the petitioners therein to monopolize the posts, even beyond the tenure, thus depriving others who are equally situated. The attempt by the petitioners here is also to cling on to the home state on one pretext or other and monopolize the benefit of OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::19::
a temporary transfer.
11. We are definite in our opinion that the refusal to join the pinpointed posts would not result in a right for continuation in MEMU-Shed at Quilon. The applicants would have to be repatriated as per the order at Annexure A-10 and it is their choice whether they join the pinpointed posts or the lower posts in the Division wherein the lien is retained. If they do not join the pinpointed posts then they will have to be repatriated to the lower posts at Erode in Salem Division and they suffer the consequence of waiving their consideration for promotion for an year. In this context they also would suffer the consequence of having to refund the additional benefits they obtained of financial upgradation on 'as is where is basis'.
12. Sri.Harikumar G. Nair, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants/petitioners in O.P (CAT) Nos.
232/2018 and 195/2019 has a different OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::20::
contention from that argued by the petitioners in the other O.P. These applicants are persons who are in MEMU-Shed, Palakkad. It is the argument that on the Palakkad Division being separated into two divisions at Palakkad and Salem, for reason of there being no maintenance facility available at Palakkad, the posts for maintenance of MEMU rakes at Palakkad Division were operated in the Electrical Section, Erode, as is evident from Annexure-A2 in O.P. 232 of 2018(from which petition, now, the documents are referred to). It is also contended that unlike the deputation in MEMU-Shed, Quilon, here the persons were selected and issued transfer orders to MEMU-Shed, Palakkad, as is seen from Annexure-A3. It is also pointed out that the posts were considered as included within the cadre of Palakkad Division, as is evident from Exhibits P-10 to P-12. Exts.P10 and P11 refer to two persons transferred to MEMU-Shed at Palakkad from Salem Division. Krishnakumari K. OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::21::
and V.Vimal Kumar on granting financial upgradation, by these documents were shown as having lien at Palakkad Division. Ext.P12 is also relied on to contend that one another person, Madhusudhanan, who was utilised as Tower Wagon Driver, on such utilisation was indicated as having maintained his lien in Technician Grade.I/Electrical at MEMU-Shed at Palakkad.
13. As earlier noted, these contentions were not advanced before the Tribunal and there was no distinction as noticed by the Tribunal in its order. Hence, Sri.Radhakrishnan, sought for time, which we granted. There is a counter affidavit filed, specifically dealing with the contentions urged before us. Referring to the documents in the counter affidavit dated 20.10.2019, it has been argued that the petitioners were aware of their continuance in the seniority list at the Salem Division, which is possible only if their lien is retained at Salem. They OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::22::
had, in fact, sought for permanent transfer to Palakkad Division, which belies the present claim that on transfer of the cadre posts from Salem to Palakkad the posts and transferees were shifted to the Palakkad Division itself. It is pointed out from the seniority lists, as was argued in the other case, that even the petitioners who were attached to the MEMU-Shed at Palakkad are shown in the seniority list of the Salem Division. It is specifically pointed out that there was no objection filed by any one, as against the seniority list published by the Salem Division. Further, if their lien was not retained at Salem there is no question of promotions, since on transfer, they would be fixed at the lowest of the seniority list in the Division to which they were transferred. The separate Divisions have separate seniority within their cadres for the purpose of consideration for promotion.
14. Sri.George Abraham, appear for party respondents in the O.A, who claim OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::23::
consideration on priority basis for the fixed tenure temporary transfers, in the posts vacated by the applicants/petitioners. He vehemently contends that the reliance placed on Annexure-A2 cannot be sustained and there is a conscious attempt by the petitioners to mislead the Tribunal and this Court. Referring to Annexure-A2, it is pointed out that the same is issued on the basis of the Memorandum dated 08.08.2003, which is read in Annexure-A2. The said Memorandum dated 08.08.2003 is produced before us through a memo. It specifically indicates that only temporary posts were created for MEMU services in Palakkad Division and that the conscious attempt to mislead the Tribunal and this Court is evident from paragraph 4(b) of the O.A. The applicants in the O.A had submitted that there is no legible copy presently available of the Memorandum dated 08.08.2003. The learned Counsel would point out that if at all there is no legible copy, it was the bounden duty of OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::24::
the petitioners to type out the same and produce it.
15. Sri.Harikumar, however, counters the contention on the ground that there is a definite change in circumstances after the Memorandum of 08.08.2003, insofar as there being a separation of the Division at Salem, which is evidenced by Annexure-A15 which deals with 19 posts to be created in Palakkad itself. Reliance is also placed on Ext. P15 to assert that the Memorandum dated 08.08.2003 was withdrawn.
16. We look at the counter affidavit of the Railways dated 20.10.2019. It has been pointed out by Sri.S.Radhakrishnan, that Ext.P10 to P12 produced in O.P(CAT) 232/2018, dealing with financial upgradation and a temporary utilization are issued on a wrong understanding of the status of the applicants working in MEMU-Shed, Palakkad. The employees referred to therein as per the recitals therein are said to have retained their liens OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::25::
in Palakkad Division. It is submitted that Ext.P12 was never marked to the Salem Division and was issued by an Assistant Personnel Officer of Palakkad. It was on a wrong understanding that, the posts in the MEMU-Shed were within the cadre created for the Palakkad Division and that the persons occupying the said posts were regularly transferred to Palakkad Division. We agree with the submission especially looking at the understanding of parties, evidenced from Ext.R1(m); a representation by the very same petitioners to treat the staff strength in the MEMU-Shed in Palakkad as a separate unit belonging to the Palakkad Division. In fact, when promotions came up within the Salem Division, Ext.R1(n) was submitted by the petitioners by which they expressed their willingness to be considered for vacancies at Electrical Section, Erode, which was also defined as their "parent cadre".
17. We do not place any reliance on OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::26::
Exts.R1(o) to R1(q), since as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the said documents were with respect to the retirement benefits of one of the applicants before the Tribunal, which was submitted while these O.P.'s were pending, going by the impugned order of the Tribunal, at the Salem Division itself for reason of the imminent retirement of that person. The retirement of the said person occurred after the dismissal of the O.A and he had not joined the other petitioners before this Court for reason of his anxiety to get retirement benefits, even from Salem Division. The resolution of the issue whether there is a permanent cadre created at Palakkad would not have affected him after retirement.
18. As far as the reliance placed on Exts.P10 and P11, with respect to the financial upgradation, deeming the employees referred to therein to have a lien at Palakkad Division, Ext.R1(r) is relevant. Pending OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::27::
promotions, it was decided to permit the respective Divisions to grant MACPS, which the Palakkad Division also granted to the persons who were continuing within their Division. This would not create any ground for treating them as being attached to the permanent cadre in Palakkad Division.
19. We cannot but observe that the petitioners all along proceeded on the basis that the transfer to Palakkad and continuance thereat was temporary, with lien retained at Salem Division. Their seniority was maintained at Salem Division and the provisional seniority lists published evoked no objection from either of the petitioners. The petitioners were in fact constantly agitating to get their transfers to Palakkad made permanent and even requested that they be retained in Palakkad after their promotion;
which consideration for promotion arose only on the basis of their seniority in Salem Division. They accepted the orders of OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::28::
promotion issued from the Salem Division on 'as is where is basis' which can only relate to their seniority at Salem Division. If the contentions of cadre closure in the other case or of permanent transfer in the referred two cases, are accepted, then necessarily the promotion orders could have been issued only from the Trivandrum or Palakkad Divisions.
20. More pertinent is the fact that the petitioners, being conscious of the retention of their lien in Salem Division, accepted the upgradation on 'as is where is basis' and when the posts they have to join on promotion were pinpointed, took an U-turn to cling on to their tenure transfers within their home state; raising ingenious but untenable contentions. We also have to notice the contentions raised on the strength of Annexure-A15, the Memorandum dated 08.08.2003 and Exhibit-P15. The contention is proved fallacious when these documents are examined in sequence of their issuance.
OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::29::
21. The first document is the Memorandum of 08.08.2003 which was issued first amongst the three, sanctioning 19 temporary posts in Palakkad Division for MEMU services. This was issued when the areas now comprised in Salem also belonged in the undivided Palakkad Division. Evidently the temporary posts created in Palakkad Divisions were at Erode;
which then was in Palakkad Division. This is made clear in Annexure A-15 dated 04.01.2011, the second in time of the three documents. Annexure A-15, is after the Palakkad Division was bifurcated into two and establishes that the MEMU maintenance and the posts created by the earlier Memorandum of 2003 was continued in the newly created Salem Division on 'as is where is basis'. By that document of 2011 there was requested a transfer of the 19 posts of maintenance of MEMU to Palakkad itself. This was done by the various documents relied on by the transferees to Palakkad MEMU-Shed. This transfer could have been facilitated only OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::30::
by Ext.P-15, the last of the documents referred to by the petitioners dated 09.01.2012. The cancellation of the Memorandum of 2003 is essential and necessary since the temporary posts were created in the erstwhile Palakkad Division comprising the bifurcated areas of Salem Division too. This was also necessitated since on transferring the posts to Palakkad as requested by Annexure A-15, the attempt was to fill up the transferred posts on the basis of requests for transfer made to Palakkad, as per their registration priority;
which has reference to the registration for home state tenure transfers. The reference in Ext.P-15, to transfer based on registration priority, establishes the plea of the Railways, of existence of short-tenure transfers to home state. The reference to RRB, in Ext.P15, is only to fill up the resultant vacancies in the Salem Division; which does not affect the lien of the transferred employees. The three documents relied on by OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::31::
the petitioners, according to us, decimate, the ingenious case set up by those now working in MEMU-Shed at Palakkad, beyond resurrection.
22. The attempt of the petitioners is only to retain the benefit of a temporary tenure posting in the home state for all times; which attempt has awakened the Railways to the peril of such off-hand indulgence, which could be misused and misinterpreted. The Railways have filed a petition in this Court for permitting creation of a cadre in the MEMU-Sheds at Quilon and Palakkad, integrating the posts within the Palakkad Division itself.
We are of the definite opinion that the Railways require no such permission from this Court and could act in accordance with their rules, regulations and policies, which are not under examination in the instant cases. As far as the petitioners/applicants are concerned, we find them to have been transferred temporarily on fixed tenure, who are obliged to obey the repatriation orders to the parent OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::32::
cadre; where their lien has been retained during the entire tenure in the home State. The original petitions are dismissed leaving the Railways to their designs, regulated by their policies, rules and regulations, in the matter of cadre creation. The parties shall suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.
Sd/-
V.G. ARUN, JUDGE.
Jma/SB17.10
OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019,
232/2018 & 195/2019 ::33::
APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 8/2019
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1(A) TO TRUE COPIES OF THE ORDERS NO.SA/P
A1(C) 135/VII/ELS DATED 20/07/2017 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT AS REGARDS THE APPLICANTS HEREIN.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.P(S)535/VII/CS QLN DATED NIL. JULY 2013 ALONG WITH LETTER NO.S/P 535/VII/ELS/OPTION DATED 31/07/2013.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.EL/143/2013 DATED 09/10/2013. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.SA/285/ELS/2013 DATED 22/11/2013. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER BEARING NO.SA/17/ELS/2014 DATED 28/03/2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT UNDER OFFICE ORDER NO.71/2012/ELEC./TRD DATED 04/10/2012. ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.P(S) 135/VII/MEMU SHED/PGT/VOL.II DATED 31/03/2017.
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 03/11/2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/04/2016 IN OA NO.1185/2014 RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS BENCH.
ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07/08/2013. ANNEXURE R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT SENIORITY LIST ISSUED BY SALEM DIVISION DURING THE YEAR 2013.
ANNEXURE R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT SENIORITY LIST ISSUED BY SALEM DIVISION DURING THE YEAR 2017.
ANNEXURE R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE RBE NO.116/2016 ISSUED BY OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::34::
THE RAILWAY BOARD DATED 30/09/2016. ANNEXURE R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE RBE NO.102/2013 DATED 08/10/2013.
ANNEXURE R1(F) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/06/2017. ANNEXURE R1(G) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL IN OA 339 AND 340/2016 DATED 27/02/2017.
ANNEXURE R1(H) A TRUE COPY OF CORRIGENDUM NO.J/P 524/RESTRUCTURING /ARTISAN STAFF DATED 18/08/2017 ISSUED BY DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, PALGHAT.
ANNEXURE R1(I) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04/09/2013. ANNEXURE R1(J) A TRUE COPY OF THE MATCHING SAVINGS MEMORANDUM DATED 31/01/2014.
ANNEXURE R1(K) A TRUE COPY OF THE OPTION LETTER DATED 02/02/2012.
ANNEXURE R1(L) A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 05/03/2012.
ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO.
SA/10/ELS/2018 DATED 09/02/2018 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN O.A.NO.180/00607/2017 AND OA NO.180/00604/2017 DATED 22 NOVEMBER 2018, RENDERED BY THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.180/00607/2017 DATED 24.07.2017, FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 22.08.2017 FILED IN O.A.NO.607/2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER DATED 9TH MAY 2018 IN O.A.NO.180/00607/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 5 TO 10 IN O.A.NO.180/00607/2017 OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::35::
DATED 06TH FEBRUARY 2017 (DATE APPEARS TO BE A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR, SINCE THE SAME WAS FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL ONLY ON 14.05.2018).
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT DATED 23RD JUNE 2018 IN O.A.NO.180/00607/2017 BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF M.A.NO.171 OF 2018 DATED 11TH FEB. 2018 IN O.A.NO.180/00607/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT (COMMON) DATED 14TH MARCH 2018 IN OP(CAT)NO.50/2018 AND OP(CAT)NO.50/2018 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::36::
APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 232/2018 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1(A) TO (G) TRUE COPIES OF ORDERS BEARING NO.SA/P 135/VII/ELS DATED 20/07/2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS REGARDS THE APPLICANTS 1 TO 7 HEREIN.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST MADE BY THE DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER/ROLLING STOCK/MEMU/PALAKKAD UNDER NO.J/M.EMU/PGT/STAFF DATED 26/11/2010. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF LIST OF TRANSFERS ISSUED UNDER NO.SA/P.135/VII/ELS/OPTION DATED 18/05/2012 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO.SA/65/ELS/2012 DATED 09/05/2012, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO.SA/80/ELS/2012 DATED 11/06/2012, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO.SA/17/ELS/2014 DATED 28/03/2014, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER BEARING NO.SA/37/ELS/2014 DATED 30/06/2014, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER NO. SA/18/ELS/2014 DATED 28/03/2014.
ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER UNDER MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.P(S)135/VII/MEMU SHED/PGT/VOL.II DATED 31/03/2017.
ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.J/P.524/RESTRUCTURING /ARTISAN STAFF DATED 07/06/2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DPO/PGT.
ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM DATED 03/11/2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 29/04/2016 IN OA NO.1185/2014 RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS BENCH. ANNEXURE R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.SA/P136/VII/ELS OPTION DATED 02/02/2012.
OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::37:: ANNEXURE R1(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER
NO.SA/24/ELS/2012 DATED 05/03/2012. ANNEXURE R1(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07/08/2013. ANNEXURE R1(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT SENIORITY LIST ISSUED BY SALEM DIVISION DURING THE YEAR 2013. ANNEXURE R1(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT SENIORITY LIST ISSUED BY SALEM DIVISION DURING THE YEAR 2017. ANNEXURE R1(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE RBE NO.116/2016 ISSUED BY THE RAILWAY BOARD DATED 30/09/2016. ANNEXURE R1(G) A TRUE COPY OF THE RBE NO.102/2013 DATED 08/10/2013.
ANNEXURE R1(H) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/06/2017. ANNEXURE R1(J) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER SANCTIONING 11 POSTS IN ADDITION TO THE 19 EXISTING POSTS IN MEMU/PALAKKAD.
ANNEXURE R1(J) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN OA 339 AND 340/2016 DATED 27/02/2017.
ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO.SA/10/ELS/2018 DATED 09/02/2018 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A14 A TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER DATED 9TH DAY OF MAY 2018, FILED BY THE APPLICANTS IN OA NO.180/607/2017 (P. GOVINDAN NAMBOOTHIRI AND OTHERS V. UOI AND ORS).
ANNEXURE A15 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER BEARING NO.J/P.135/MEMU DATED 04/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT SENIOR DPO/PGT.
ANNEXURE A16 A TRUE COPY OF RAILWAY BOARD ORDER BEARING RBE NO.229/2001 DATED 21/11/2001.
ANNEXURE A17 A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.J/P 135/COORD/CADRE MANAGEMENT DATED 09/05/2018, ISSUED BY THE DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER/PALGHAT.
ANNEXURE A18 A TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.J/P 535/111/MEMU DATED 05/04/2017, ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SR. DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER/PALGHAT.
ANNEXURE R1(K) A TRUE COPY OF RAILWAY BOARD'S LETTER DATED 01/05/2018.
OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019,
232/2018 & 195/2019 ::38::
ANNEXURE R1(L) A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY IN OA
607/2017 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION
NO.604/2017 DATED 25.07.2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNKAULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 IN O.A.NO.604/2017 DATED 22.08.2017 ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNKAULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 14.03.2018 IN OP CAT NO.50 OF 2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER FILED BY PETITIONERS HEREIN IN O.A.NO.604/2017 DATED 19.05.2018 ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNKAULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 IN O.A.NO.604/2017 DATED 23.06.2018 ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNKAULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 6 TO 12 IN O.A.NO.604/2017 DATED 22.08.2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNKAULAM BENCH. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.A.NO.604/2017 DATED 22.11.2018 PASSED BY THE HONBLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST MADE BY COP UNDER NO.P(S)535/VII/CS QLN DATED 24.07.2013. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.EL/143/2013 DATED 09.10.2013.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO.J/MEMU-2/2016 DATED 30.12.2016.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO.J/MEMU-1/2016 DATED 07.04.2017.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO.J/P.535/TRD/TWD/VOL.3 DATED 07.05.2015.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING BEING OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019, 232/2018 & 195/2019 ::39::
NO.J/A/RS/ED/150/TS/TVC DATED 23.01.2007. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.SA/P.135/VII/ELS/MEMU SHED DATED 23.11.2018.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.P(S) 135/VII/ELS/PGT DATED 08.01.2012 RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R1(M) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 20/02/2015. ANNEXURE R1(N) A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE TO THE SENIOR DPO PALAKKAD BY THE EMPLOYEES OF MEMU PGT.
ANNEXURE R1(O) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF MR. P.S. PADMANABHAN DATED 31/12/2018.
ANNEXURE R1(P) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.J/P.535/III/MEMU/VOL.II DATED 04/01/2019. ANNEXURE R1(Q) A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.SA/P 579/VII/ELS/SUPERANNUATION DATED 07/01/2019. ANNEXURE R1(R) A TRUE COPY OF THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY CIRCULAR NO.P(R)/535 P/MACPS DATED 24/11/2009. ANNEXURE R1(S) A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMU SHED/PGT EMPLOYEES REPRESENTATION DATED 25/10/2013 TO DPO/SA. ANNEXURE R1(T) A TRUE COPY OF THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER/PGT LETTER DATED 18/08/2017 CANCELLING A-10.
EXHIBIT R6 A TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION MEMORANDUM DATED
08.08.2003
OP(CAT Nos, 8/2019,
232/2018 & 195/2019 ::40::
APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 195/2019
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL
APPLICATION BEING OA NO.581/2019 DATED 31.07.2019 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19.12.2018 IN OP(CAT)NO.232/2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 02.08.2019 IN OA NO.581/2019, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH EXHIBIT P1(A1) TRUE COPY OF TRANSFER ORDER NO.SA/24/ELS/2012 DATED 05.03.2012 ISSUED BY DPO SALEM EXHIBIT P1(A2) TRUE COPY OF RELIEVING ORDER NO.S./P.135/VII/ELS/OPTION DATED 04.09.2012 EXHIBIT P1(A3) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 12.09.2014 ISSUED BY THE APPLICANT TOT THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1(A4) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.P(S)135/VII/MEMU SHED/PGT/VOL.II DATED 31.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1(A5) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.J/P.535/111 MEMU DATED 05.04.2017 EXHIBIT P1(A6) TRUE COPY OF OFF OFFICE ORDER NO.EL/46/2019 DATED 24.07.2019 EXHIBIT P1(A7) TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO.J/MEMU-1/2016 DATED 30.12.2016 EXHIBIT P1(A8) TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO.J/MEMU-2/2016 DATED 07.04.2017