Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Pramod Kumar vs M/O Railways on 10 October, 2018
bh
tA
HYDERABAD
0A/021/0852/2018, 853,854, 855,856,857,858 & 859/2018
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL:HYDERABAD BENCH
'Dated: 10-10-2018
Girish Kumar Chandra,
S/o. Late Tarachand Chandra,
Aged about 45 years,
Occ: Station Master, Gr. c,
Aurangabad Railway Station, --_
Nanded Division, XK
South Central Railway, Aurangabad:
Pramod Kumar, S/o. Ram Briksh Prasad,
Aged about 46 years,
Occ. Station Master Gr. c,
Lasur Railway Station, Nanded Division,
South Central Ratway, Lasur.
Anil Kumar, 5/o. Late Nand Kishore Prasad,
Aged about 47 years, Occ. Station Master,
Nagarsol Railway Station, Nanded Division,
South Central Railway, Nagarsol,
Kripan Roy, 5/c. Kalipada Roy,
Aged about 47 years,
Occ. Station Master, Gr. C,
Nanded Railway Station, Nanded Division,
South Central Railway, Nanded,
Sant Kumar Barnwal,
Sfo. Babulal Prasad Barrwal,
Aged about 36 years,
Occ. Station Master, Gr. C,
Rotegaon Ratlway Station,
Nanded Division,
South Central Railway, Rotegaon.
Anand Singh, S/o. Antram,
Aged about 42 years,
Gee. Station Master, Gr. C,
Basmat Railway Station, Nanded Divisian,
South Central Rallway, Basrmat.
Applicant in
OA/852/2018
. Applicant in
04/853/2018
_.Applicant in
OA/854/2018
_ Applicant in
OA/855/2018
Applicant in
OA/856/2018
Applicant in
OA/857/2018
ae
7. Sanjay Kumar Singh,
S/o. Premnath Singh,
Aged about 43 years,
Occ: Station Master, Gr, C,
Potul Rallway Station, Nanded Division, --
South Central Railway, Potul. . Applicant in
04/858/2018
8. Hiralal, S/o. Sri Asha Ram,
Aged about 48 years,
Occ. Station Master, Gr. C,
Nagarsol Railway Station,
Nanded Division,
South Central Railway, Nagarsol. Applicant in
OA/859/2018
AND
1. Union of India,
rep. by its General Manager,
South Central Railway,
Secunderabad.
2. The Chief Operating Manager,
South Central Railway,
Secunderabad,
3. The Chief Personnel Officer,
South Central Railway,
Secunderabad.
4, The Divisional Railway Manager,
South Central Railway,
Nanded Division,
Nanded. _ Respondents in
alithe above OAs.
Counsel for the applicants Dr. A. Raghu Kumar
Counsel for the respondents Wirs. AP. Lakshmi,
$C for Railways.
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE MRS. NAINI JAYASEELAN, MEMBER {A}
ORAL ORDER
[Per Hon''ble Mr. Justice R. Kantha Rao, Member(!)] SIZ a é ELE ss Qi EEN ee Heard Or. A. Raghukumar, learned counsel for the applicants and
2. Since the issue involved In all the 8 OAs are similar, these ORs ar disposed of by the following common order:
3, All the applicants are Station Master, GrC working in Nanded division of South Central Railway. All the applicants applied for inter-zonal transfers. Their applications were forwarded to the respective zones and the respective zones accepted their requests and agreed to take them to their zones on inter-zonal transfer. There are several other employees like the applicants in the present O.As. Some inter-zonal transfers were given effect to and some were not. Aggrieved by the same, some of the employees whose requests for inter-zonal transfers were considered but were mot relieved, approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. Nos/020/258 te 262, 272, 390 to 392, 444 to 448, 59, 560, 1080, LO8t & 1129 te 1132/2015. The Tribunal disposed of the QLAs on merits by a common order dated 21.44.2016 and directed the respondent Railways to relieve the applicants therein within the time prescribed in the said order. Agerieved by the same, the respondents filed Writ Petition No.3 1 S44/ 2016 & batch. The Writ Potitions were dismissed by the Diviston Bench of the Hon*ble High Court by order dated 31.10.2017 canfirming the order passed by the Tribunal and directed the Railway administration to effect the inter-zonal transfers in respect of the respondents therein by 282.2018 by relieving them to enable them to join in their transferred places. To facilitate the respondents in the Writ Petition, the Railway Recruitment Board was further directed to complete the process of recruliment by 31.1.2018. The applicants in the instant O.As approached the Tribunal praying for the same relief. Their grievance is that even though 6 4 years have elapsed, their inter-
f Cha "ee zonal transfers were not given effect to and the sy were not relieved from their respective places to enable them to join in their transferred places.
4, The respondents inter-alia contended as follows:
1) The applications of the employees are registered basing on zonal priority, There are 1006 vacancies of Goods Guards existing as an date over the entire zone and 421 in Secunderabad Division. Therefore, a decision was made to relieve the candidates only after the position is improved since Station Master post is a sensitive safety category directly connected with tram operations. They refuted the contentions of the applicants that the East Central Railway is still willing to ace "onmmodate the applHeants. According to the respondents, the no objection g given is conditional and its validity period is already over. It is further contended by the respondents that the applicants have no right for inter-zonal transfer and in the exigencies of service, their requests for imter-zonal transfers can be rejected. According to the respondents, the applicants, have no claim as perspective right for transfer to another Railway or another establishment and, therefore, according to the respondents, it is not mandatory on their part to relieve the applicants, i} Nexth, if is submitted that the Raihway Recruitment Board had supplied 383 papers of Goods Guards but 167 had not joined the post.
Therefore, action is on hand to convince the Railway Recruitment Board for some more RRB papers for Station Masters. It is submitted that while appreciating the grievance of the applicants! employees, the respondents are bound to look afler the safety of the travelling public rather than giving preference to individual needs, Drawing a distinction between Station Master category and Goods Guards category it is stated that Goods Guards are of onan Ee a, -- "3 Feee tO vital safety category where they have to Werkin the running train for certain distance whereas Station Master works in the station attending operational duties. The pay levels are also said to be different and, therefore, according to the respondents, both categories cannol be compared with each other. In Station Master's case, the version of the respondents seems to be that the Hon'ble High Cawrt had directed the Railway Recruitment Board ta supply papers to Rathvay administration and the dictum laid down will not be applicable in the case of Goods Guards,
iii) it is farther submitted that ander Employment Notice dated 3/2015, Railway Recruitment Board had allotted 383 papers out of which 216 had joined and the R.R.B. has not given any replacement, On the other hand there are 950 vacancies in the Guards category as on date, Thus, according to the respondents, relieving the apploants who are Goods Guards would cause operational hazards and endanger the safety of general public, iv} Lastly, it is submitted that ensuring safety is paramount fimetion of Indian Railways which cannot be compromised. Therefore, relieving of Station Masters will jeopardize the t travelling p sublic.
Contending as above, the respondents sought to dismiss the O.As.
5. In all the O.As, the very same contentions have been set forth by the respondents. The main contention of the respondent Railways appears to be that if th ation Masters, who are the applicants, are reheved, the safety of general public would be in jeopardy and, therefore, they prayed not to grant t any direction to relieve the Station Masters. fh fete wn 6, Before proceeding to dispose of these O.As, the main grounds on which the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the Wri * Petitions are required to be noticed. In the earlter O.As against which Writ Petitions were filed, the respondent Railways put forth the same contentions which are now taken in the instant O.As. As the applicants in the present case the applicants in those cases also contended that the delay in relieving them would jeopardize their career interest in the Railways to which they have sought transfer. In this context, it requires to be noticed that though the Railways have taken a decision to effect inter-zonal transfers basing on a priority Hist and in a time bound manner, the cases of some juniors were considered ignoring the requesis of seniors. This has been made out from the pleadings of both the parties and there is no dispute about the said fact and the said issue needs no illustration. The Division Bench of the Hon "ble High Court repelled the contention of the respondent Railways that the applicants x have no right for transfer to another Railway or another establishment. The Division Bench made an observation that there is always a ground for net relieving the respondents therein even after three years of the transter orders. The findings recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court in para 9 & 10 are as follows:
"Gs In the cases on hand, it is not the case of the Administration that the requests of the respondents for Zonal transfer were Hable to be rejected. Their requests were already accepted. The respondents did not go to the Tribunal seeking a positive wandanms directing the Railway Administration ta transfer them trom one zone to another. If they were seeking a transfer through Court order, the Administration may be entitled to put Rule 226 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code.
10, But once their requests for Zonal transiers have been accepted, the same cannot be kept in cold storage. tf we have a look at the time line of events, it could be seen that by the Circular dated 2.11.2605, the Administration was directed to draw a time-bound programme. Exactly a seid of 12 years has now passed from the date of the said Circular. No time- bound programme has been chalked out by the Administration, The Circular also toandates that existence of vacancies need not deter the implementation of the orders of wansfer. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in allowing the applications of the contesting respondents."
Therefore, the same contentions which are advanced in the present O.As by the respondents, were urged before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court, considering all the facts and circumstances, passed the above mentioned order.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants contended that if the inter-zonal transfers are not given effect and the applicants are not relieved, career prospects of the applicants, education of their children and other lamtly issues Will be adversely affe They also brought to our neice the fact that the applicants agreed to take up the bottom most seniority, Therefore, any further delay in effecting the inter-zon gal transfers will jeopardize their prospects,
3. Cn the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that if the applicants are directed to be relieved, it would endanger public safety and cause a lot of trouble for the Railway administration. The same contention in respect of the Station Masters was advanced before the Hon'ble High Court. But the Hon'ble High Court did not accept the same. The inter-zonal transfers of several cadres have been accepted by the respondent Railways and, therefore, we think it not proper to draw a distinction between various categories of employees and the Railway wa & Administration is under duty to give effect to the said inter-zonal transfers by .
reliewi ing the applicants, hes!
9. Mrs. AP. Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent Railways contended that the applicants waited for the decision of the Hon*ble High Court in the aforementioned Writ Petitions and filed the present O.A, As the applicants are not parties to the said O.As, they have not approached the Tribunal at appropriate time for redressal of their grievance, their original applications ought not to have been admitted by the Tribunal an account of the bar of limitation which is set out wS 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. According to the learned counsel, after the decision for inter- zonal transfers was taken, the applicants ought to have approached the Trthounal within the period preseribed w/S 2] of the Tribunals Act. The learned Standing counsel also relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in $8, Balu & Another vs State of Kerala & Others dated 13.1.2009 wherein the Supreme Court in para 18 of the jadgement held as follows:
"12. Tt is also well settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity'. Government Order was tssued on 15.1.2002. Appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and State of Kerala preferred an appeal thereagainst, they impleaded themselves as party respondents. Tt is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a Jong delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgement. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage, In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 278, this Court held:
"16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of The aan herein filed a writ petition after 17 years. They did not agitate thei grievances for a long time. The as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 1% workmen at the earliest possible opportunity. They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Trdbunal. [tis not their ease that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said svale of pay. After such a long time, therefore, the writ petitions could not have been entertained even if they arc similarly situated, Ik is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant facts for exercise of equitable jurisdiction."
10. The judgement relied on by the learned Standing Counsel, in our ' view, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The said decision relates to appointment and the Supreme Court with reference to the facts of the case took a view that the applicants only after knowing about the decision rendered by the High Court in favour of some other candidates approached the High Court and, therefore, they are not entitled for the relief which was given to the applicants before the High Court. The fact situation in the case befors the Supreme Court and in the present OAs is distinguishable. in the case before the Supreme Court, the appellants therein sought a mandennes in respect of their right to appointment. In the present O.As, the request of the applicants for their inter-zonal transfer was already considered by the Rx ailway administration and they approached the Tribunal as the same was not given | elfect to even after 6 34 years. Since the inter-zonal transfers of the applicants and other employees were sought to be given effect to by the Railway :
adminisiration ina time bound manner basing on priority list, at no paint of time the applicants in the instant cases were rejected of their request for inter- zonal transfer. Since as per the policy of Railways, it has to be done in a time bound manner, the applicants waited Tor implementation and as it was not done within a reasonable time, they approached the Tribunal. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the contention that the relief prayed for by the applicants in the present O.A. is barred by [imitation u/S 21 of the Adiministrative Tribunals Act.
* li. As regards the question whether the decision of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in the above Writ Petition apples to the applicants in the present cases, we are of view that it applies to the Railways as well as the Railway employees whose requests for inter-zonal transfers were approved and have been waiting for their release {rom their respective places.
i2. We took notice of the statement of the learned Standing Commsel for the Respondents about the incenvenience that would be caused to the Railways in the event of relleving the applicants immediately. At the same time, we are conscious of the fect that the finalization of the relieving of the applicants cannot be put on hold by the Railways indefinitely and the Railway administration hes to effect inter-zonal transfers within a reasonable time.
{3. After rendering the aforementioned judgement by the Division Bench of the Hon*ble High Court, the Respondent Railways ought to have taken teps to relieve the employees whose requests for inter-zonal transfers are rs SS accepted. But the Railway adminisirasiaiednly gave effect to the order passed by the Hon*ble high Court in the above batch of Writ Petittons.
14. in view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that a . direction requires to be given to the respondent Railways to release the applicants so as LAE og ta enable them to join in their respective transferred places pursuant to their inter-zonal transfers. Therefore, the respondents are directed to take steps to relieve the applicants to their transferred places within a period of six months from the dete af receipt of this order.
15. The O.As are, therefore, allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to casts.
ves, EE PY ay | nhs ie cat é