Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad

Brij Kishore Srivastava vs General Manager N C Rly on 31 May, 2023

                                           O.A. No.1110/2019




                                 (Reserved on 29.5.2023)

 Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench,
                     Allahabad

              Original Application No. 1110/2019

This the 31st day of May, 2023

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)

Brij Kishore Srivastava aged about 49 years s/o Sri
Madan Singh Srivastava, near old Christ King School,
Uday Nagar, Agra Road, Tundla, Firozabad.
                                          .......Applicant
By Advocate - Sri Rajesh Kumar

                        VERSUS

   1.  Union of India through General Manager, North
       Central     Railway,   Headquarters     Office,
       Subedargnj, Allahabad.
  2.   Divisional Railway Manager, North Central
       Railway, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahbaad.
  3.   Senior     Divisional   Electrcical   Engineer
       (Operation), North Central Railway, Nawab
       Yousb road,Allahabad.
  4.   Senior Divisional Operating Manager, North
       Central Railway, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad.
  5.   Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North
       Central Railway, DRM's Office Complex, Nawab
       Yusuf Road, Allahabad.
                                      Respondents
By Advocate -   Sri Ajay Kumar Rai

                        ORDER

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash-VII, Member (J) The present O.A. has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the prayer fror quashing the impugned Screening result dated 27.6.2019 and direct the respondents to re-screen the applicant and absorb on suitable alternative cadre post (stationary job) as per provision of Railway Rules with all consequential benefits.

2. The brief facts of the case are that applicant was posted as Loco Pilot Goods and has been declared medically decategorised on 28.11.2016 from the running duties. Railway Department constituted a screening committee to find out the suitable alternative job to the applicant. Applicant was screened on 6.12.2018. Result of the screening committee was declared on 24.12.2018, wherein applicant was allotted the ex-cadre/tenure post of Traction Loco Controller (TLC) which was against the statutory rules and IREM provision.

3. Learned counsel for respondents argued that applicant was declared medically unfit on 28.11.2016. It is further stated that alternative post was allotted as per paragraph No. 1301 to 1303 of IREM Volume 1. In para 10 of the Counter reply, it is admitted to the extent that applicant was not allotted the ex-cadre tenure post of Traction Loco Controller (TLC) vide order dated 24.12.2018, whereas from perusal of the order dated 24.12.2018 clearly shows that applicant was allotted the alternative job of TLC/TDL, which according to the applicant is ex-cadre/ tenure post and as per para 6.8 of Master Circular 25, it is provided that "Absorption of medically de-categorised staff should be absorbed in suitable alternative post in regular cadre only and not in tenure posts." Hence, it is against the statutory rules.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for applicant produced a judgment passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 894/2019 decided on 11.1.2023 and stated that the case of the applicant is similar to the O.A. No. 894/2019 and he would be satisfied if the same directions is given in the case of the applicant also. Order passed in O.A.No. 894/2019 has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition A No. 7949 of 2023 vide order dated 8.5.2023.

6. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record.

7. The relevant paras of the judgment passed in O.A. No.179/2020 are reproduced below:-

"7. Point 6.8 of the Master Circular 25 clearly provides that "Medically decategorised staff should be absorbed in suitable alternative posts in regular cadre only and not in tenure posts", but Screening committee has recommended the case of the applicant for absorption for non - cadre post i.e. PC/TC/CC as per point No. 6.1 and 6.2 of the Master Circular 25.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in similar facts and circumstances, Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 434/2008 (Bibhuti Bhusan Pandey Vs. Union of India and others) relying on judgment and order passed by the same Bench in O.A. No. 910/2006 had allowed the O.A. and quashed the order dated 12.8.2008. The operative portion of para 4 and 5 of the judgment is reproduced below:-

"4. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the parties, perused the materials placed in this OA as also the records of OA No.910/2006. On perusal of the earlier order of this Tribunal it is seen that the stand of the Respondents' counsel that there has been no decision on principle is not correct. In fact this Tribunal alter considering all aspects of the matter came to a positive finding which has binding effect to all similarly situated employees of the Railways. The operative part of the order dated 03.0 1.2008 in OA No.910/2006 reads as under:

"38. We carefully examined the impugned order, the respondents have not assigned the reasons, the provisions of 47 of the said Act 1/96, i.e. Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and other Page 3 of 6 O.A. No.1110/2019 rules and instructions of the Railway Board are not taken into consideration. The objects of the provisions are very important and should be followed by the competent authority. The medically dc- categorized staff can be shifted to any other post in the same pay scale or action to be taken to keep him in supernumerary post under the provisions of the said Act by the competent authority other than the authority who passed an order by L exercising his powers vested in him. The applicant's service is to be protected as if he was getting all the benefits available to the running staff.

39. After careful consideration of the contentions of either side, citations referred to above and the relevant provisions of IREM, we are of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of relief and the stand taken by the respondents is absolutely illegal. The respondents are not justified in considering the case of the applicant while issuing the impugned order and the applicant is placed in the list for screening to the post of PC/CC in Mechanical Department. We are of the considered view that the applicant is entitled for the relief as prayed for. Accordingly, we direct the competent authority i.e. respondents to delete the name of the applicant from the panel list dated 30.11.2006 (Annexure A-2) and post the applicant in suitable alternative post, if suitable post is not available, create supernumerary post in accordance with Chapter XIII of IREM Vol.1 and section 47 of Act 1 of 1996."

1. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in our mind to hold that the order dated 12.8.2008 is not sustainable. Hence the same is hereby quashed. As a result, the Respondents are directed to post the applicant in a suitable alternative post except the Power Controller! Crew Controller and if suitable post is not available, create supernumerary post in accordance with Chapter XIII of IREM Vol.1 and section 47 of Act 1 of 1996. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 60(sixty) days from the date of receipt of this order. In the Page 4 of 6 O.A. No.1110/2019 result, this OA stands allowed in the afore- stated terms. No costs."

9. In the instant matter, if the facts and circumstances disclosed by the parties are compared with the facts and circumstances of O.A. No. 434/2008 and O.A. No. 910/2006 as referred above by the learned counsel for the applicant, we are of the view that applicant is entitled to the benefit of point No. 6.8 of the Master Circular 25. Decisions rendered in the aforesaid O.As can safely be adopted to settle the issue involved in the present O.A.

10. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in our mind to hold that the orders dated 11.3.2019 and 21.1.2020 are not sustainable. Hence the same are hereby quashed. As a result, the Respondents are directed to post the applicant in a suitable alternative post except the PC/TC/CC and if suitable post is not available, create supernumerary post in accordance with Chapter XIII of IREM Vol.1 and section 47 of Act 1 of 1996 and in the light of point No. 6.8 of the Master Circular No. 25. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 60(sixty) days from the date of receipt of this order.

11. In the result, the OA stands allowed in the afore-stated terms.

9. In the instant case, applicant's after de- categorization was declared medically unfit and was allotted the ex.cadre /tenure post of Traction Loco Controller (TLC). The present O.A. has been filed claiming relief that respondents be directed to post the applicant in suitable alternate cadre post (stationary job). If the facts of the present case are compared with the facts of O.A. No. 894/2019 passed on 11.1.2023, there Page 5 of 6 O.A. No.1110/2019 are no distinguishable facts to deny the benefits to the applicant. The aforesaid O.A. has been allowed discussing the relevant Master Circular 25. Thus, in the opinion of the court, applicant's case is squarely covered with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 11.1.2023 passed in O.A. No.894/2019.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, order dated 27.6.2019 is not sustainable. Hence the same are hereby quashed. The O.A. is allowed. As a result, the Respondents are directed to post the applicant in a suitable alternative post in stationary job and if suitable post is not available, create supernumerary post in accordance with Chapter XIII of IREM Vol.1 and section 47 of Act 1 of 1996 and in the light of point No. 6.8 of the Master Circular No. 25. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 60(sixty) days from the date of receipt of this order.

10. Misc. Applications pending if any, in this case, shall also stands disposed off.

11. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Mohan Pyare)               (Justice Om Prakash -VII)
  Member (A)                            Member (J)

HLS/-




                                                    Page 6 of 6