Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Sk Iliyas vs S E Railway on 5 March, 2018
ij IN THE NTRAL ADMINISTRATI'JE TBUNAL art s;brata Rwj4fl Das, on nf S. Das, wArking as Loca pilot Fassenger, under EaSteI'n RailwaY, sea1ciah Dtvisi°fl,and estding at 24, ba rasat goad, p.o. Nona-chawidn pukurio IKol-
Icata 7$0 122.
-- Versus -
I . The Union o India, thrnugh the General anager, 17, Netaii subtaS fload, Knlkat& a 7G0 cd.
sibnal 2. Eastern RailwaY, sealthth saalcl€th, oikata -- 7QO(?14.' DiViSiMfl Fersonf101
3. The Senior Qfficer, Eaaterfl Railway, séaldah.
sa1dah, Kalkat& -- 700, oik.
cnntd. .. p,2.
I 1 -
:1 1 The Sr. DiviStOfltl Electrical Sri A.K. hewbtY, wnrking as Loco Pilot )iail(E1tctiC), under Eastern RaIlwaY, sealdti Divistofli Xalkata - 700 alA.
......... gospondents.
-- -------------------
/
1
No.O.A.350/69/2018 Date of order 05.03.2018
Coram Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Patnaik, Judicial Member Hon'ble Dr. (Ms.) Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member For the applicant : Mr. N. Roy, counsel For the respondents Mr. S.K. Das, counsel 0 R D E R (ORAL) Mr. A.K. Patnaik, J.M. The instant O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Central Administrative TribunaIsAct,1.85 fraihgfor the following reliefs:-
"(a) To issue direction upon the respondentsto consider the representation, dtd. 20-09-17 and 11-12-2b17.foi.tl).post of taco Pilot Mail (Eledric) for the promotional post of Loco Pil& Fl, f6çihwith,
(b)To issue furth&r directldn.4ul5bfi the'rspändent to quash, cancel and/or set-aside the: impugned oderUtØ..h8I2717,Jorthwith;
To issue further direction upon the respondents where the applicant is senior-most candidate, the respondent authority has not considered though the juNortahdidate's promotion has been considered for the post of LOo Pilot Mail (Eleätric)withoutconsidering the case of the applicant for the said post. So, applicant's case may be considered forthwith;
Any other orderor orders as the Learned Tribunal deem fit and proper.
To produce Connected Departmental Record at the time of Hearing."
:
Heard Mr. N. Roy, Id. counsel for the applicant. Ld. counsel Mr. S.K. DasJs . .-
also present and heard. .
. Brief facts of the case as narrated by the Id. counsel for the applicant are
that the applicant was promoted to the post of Loco Pilot Goods (E) vide order dated 04-11-2010 alongwith other candidates wherein the name of the applicant E 2 found place at Srl.No.12 and name of Sri Dibyendu Goswami appeared at Sri. No.11. However, it is submitted by the Id. counsel for the applicant that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the applicant and punishment was imposed upon him by withholding his increment for two years with non- cumulative effect. Thereafter a provisional seniority list dated 12.09.2017 was published by the respondent authorities wherein the name of the applicant appeared at Srl.No.353 whreas the name of Sri D. Goswami appeared at Srl.No.317. The grievances of the applicant is that his name appeared in the seniority list 45 heads below than that of Sri D. Goswami who was his immediate senior in the earlier list of promotion ofLoco Pilot Gpods(E) dated 04.11.2010, therefore, he has been dep'ried ofgettingp(omotiOn, and the promotion order was published on 08.122017 4,ithout considering his case. Being aggrieved the applicant made representattorl 0 theauthortty concerned on 2009 2017 followed by representation dated '1I.i220l7, but no reply has been given by the respondents. Finding no othr_álternative h&has come to this Tribunal seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
Ld. counsel for the applicant submitted that that the applicant would be satisfied for the present if a direction is given to the Respondent No.3 i.e. the Senior Divisional personnel Officer, Sealdah, Eastern Railway, Kolkata to consider last representation of the applicant dated and dIspose of the 11.12.2017(Annexure A/5) as per rules and regulations governing the field wihin a specific time frame.
Though no notice has been given to the respondents, we are of the view that it would not be prejudicial to either of the sides if a direction is given to the 3
4. 4/ Respondent No.3 to consider and dispose of the representation of the applicant p as per rules and regulations in force within a time frame.
6. Accordingly the respondent No.3 i.e. the Senior Divisional personnel.
Officer, Sealdah, Eastern Railway, Kolkata is directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the applicant dated 11.12.2017(AnneXure A/5) as per the rules and regulations in force by passing a well reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, if such representation is still lying pending for consideration and communicate the decision to the applicant forthwith. After such consideration, if the decision of the respondents goes in favour of the applicant, the consequential benefits may be given to him within a further period of six weeks from th6ldate of taking decision in the matter.
It is made clear.that We'havtnôtgOheintbthe
----------- merits of the case and all the points raised in th'e repr&ntationlpreklept.*open for consideration by the ...
respondent authorities as per ru!es andTgulbIirleS governing the field.
As prayed by the Id. Counsel for the applicant, a copy of this order along with the paper book may be transmitted to the - Respondent No.3 by the Registry by speed post for which Id. counsel for the applicant shall deposit the cost within a week.
With the above observations the O.A. is disposed of. No order as to cost.
(Aatnaik) .•
(Dr. N. Chatterjee)
Judicial Member
Administrative Member
IN