Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
All Presently Working With Head Quarter ... vs Union Of India on 4 September, 2008
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No.1748 of 2008 New Delhi this the 4th day of September, 2008 Honble Mr. Justice M. Venkateswara Reddy, Member (J) Honble Shri Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) S/o Shri 1. Rajinder Prasad SM Gr.I Rs.4500-7000 Shri Ayug Narain SM Gr.I Rs.4500-7000 Shri Kundanl Lal SM Gr.I Rs.4500-7000 Shri Purushottam Ram SM Gr.II Rs.4000-6000 Shri Balbir Singh SM Gr.II Rs.4000-6000 Shri Jamil Ahmed SM Gr.II Rs.4000-6000 All presently working with Head Quarter at Delhi Kishan Ganj under Dy. Chief Signal and Telecom Engineer (Construction Works), Divisional Railway Managers Office, New Delhi, in the work charge establishment of Power Signaling Works with Chief signal and Telecom Engineer (Const.), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi (Respondent No.3 herein) .... Applicants ( By Advocate Shri D.R. Roy) VERSUS Union of India Through General Manager, Northern Railway, Hd. Qrs., Baroda House, New Delhi. Chief Signal and Telecom Engineer (Const.) (CSTE for short), Northern Railway, Hd. Qrs., Baroda House, New Delhi. .. Respondents ( By Advocate Shri R.L. Dhawan) O R D E R (ORAL) Honble Mr. Justice M. Venkateswara Reddy, Member (J) :
This Application is filed for the following reliefs:-
a) to provide muster sheet and duty roaster on the person of each of these technicians together with any helper attached with them. This may be alternatively kept with one of the senior most if at all they continue as one group.
b) To provide duty pass/card pass for undertaking movement from one place to another so that in the event of any casualty their identity may be ascertained even by a third person.
c) Not to mark them absent arbitrarily particularly when these workers having more than 20 years of service have proved their obedient and hard working nature on record by the Shear fact that their record is clean.
d) Any other or further relief may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the Applicants and against the Respondents.
2. It is not necessary to go into the several allegations made in the OA. We heard submissions made by both sides. Learned counsel for the applicants states that there are rules providing for supply of muster sheet and duty roaster and providing the helper is the discretion of the concerned authorities depending upon the circumstances. This is the submission to the extent of first relief is concerned. Coming to the second relief, i.e., providing of duty pass/card for undertaking journey from one place to another is also governed by the rules. So far as third prayer i.e. marking absent arbitrarily is concerned, it is not disputed that muster sheet is being maintained whether a particular person absented from duty or not is a question of fact. As such no direction can be given in respect to the third relief by us when particularly a muster sheet is maintained.
3. In the counter reply of the respondents insofar as providing of muster sheet, duty roaster and duty pass/card is concerned, it is stated as under:-
3. That the applicants fall in the essential category and are being deputed to work for 8 hours a day. However, if an employee performs his duty for more than 8 hours in a day, he is being paid overtime allowance. The attendance sheets are always with the Senior-subordinate Incharge under whose instructions they perform their duty at the site of work. Helper is provided to Artisan Staff where ever possible to assist the Signal Maintainer in performing his duty. The same is achieved with the co-ordination of 2 or more SMs working together with the assistance of each other, hence if two or more SMs are performing their duty together they do not require helper. Staff are issued card pass for movement from one place to another at site of work.
4. The applicants herein are Artisan Staff presently attending to the construction work. Wherever construction work is taken up, they have to work for 8 hours at that place. For the work beyond 8 hours, they are being paid over time allowance. It is interesting to note that in the prayers (a) & (b), the word employed is to provide muster sheet, duty roaster and duty pass/card. At this juncture, certain facts are to be noted. As per Annexure R/1, the applicants were asked to report before Junior Engineer Signal, Delhi Kishanganj to work under his control at Moradabad but all the applicants herein put a condition in writing that for compliance of the order, the authorities have to meet their demands. There demands are enumerated in Annexure R/2. First demand is that they should be given the muster sheet so that defects are not allowed to creep in, secondly, if any mis-happening took place, the Senior Signal Engineer in Delhi shall be made responsible and thirdly, daily program of work shall be given to them along with duty hours. On 26.7.2008, all the applicants and another were asked to immediately report for doubling work through Senior Section Engineer (Signal), Delhi Kishanganj, Delhi before Deputy Chief Signal Telecom Engineer, Construction, Tilak Bridge, New Delhi by Deputy Chief Signal Telecom Engineer, Combined Works, Northern Railway, New Delhi. In pursuance thereof, Senior Section Engineer (Signal), Delhi Kishanganj by order dated 26.7.2008 spared the applicants and another and directed them to report to Dy. Chief Signal Telecom Engineer, Construction, Tilak Bridge, New Delhi but the applicants did not report for duty at Tilak Bridge. On 13.08.2007, SSTE/C/JUC made orders on the very sheet containing the demands made by the applicants that helper may be provided where only one SM is on duty and the muster sheet should be with SSE/JE in charge of the station where the employees are working. Notices dated 23.8.2008 were also issued to the applicants that if they failed to report duty, action would be taken against them. An endorsement which was made by Senior Section Engineer on 17.8.2007 shows that the applicants refused to take the sheets containing their demands and the endorsement/orders made by the Senior Section Engineer, Telecom, Delhi Kishanganj. It is evident from the above narration of events that the applicants were defying the orders of the superiors right from the beginning and failed to report to duty. We have already noted above that the SSTE/C/JUC passed orders on the demands made by the applicants. Though the learned counsel for the applicants states that providing of muster sheet, duty roaster and duty pass/card are governed by the rules, no such rules are placed before us. We are unable to understand how Muster sheets can be handed over to the Artisan staff when it is to be maintained by the concerned officer. Why only those six applicants are making those demands and defying the orders of the superiors is not made clear. As already stated the learned counsel for the applicants has not placed any rules before us. If the rules are there, the authorities are bound to implement them. If they failed to implement them, it is always open to the applicants to make a representation before the higher authorities. This Court cannot go into the questions of fact relating to day-to-day work of Artisan staff. If any grievances are there, it is always open to the applicants to make representation before the higher authorities. It is not as if the applicants are seeking a direction to the respondents to formulate a scheme in the absence of the rules to govern the day-to-day work carried out by the Artisan Staff.
5. With the aforesaid observations, this Application stands dismissed. No costs.
(Shailendra Pandey ) (Justice M. Venkateswara Reddy)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ravi/