Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Surendra Singh vs M/O Railways on 17 February, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No. 1563/2013
Order Pronounced on: 17.02.2016
Hon'ble Mr. A. K. Bhardwaj, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. V.N. Gaur, Member (A)
1. Sh. Surender Singh s/o Sh. Vijendra Singh,
Working as Divisinal Signal and
Tele-Communication Engineer,
North Central Railway,
Agra.
2. Sh. S.P.Sharma s/o Sh. G.N.Sharma,
Working as Divisinal Signal and
Tele Communication Engineer,
North Central Railway,
Agra. - Applicants
(By Advocate: Ms. Meenu Mainee)
Vs.
Union of India: Through
1. Secretary, Railway Board,
Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. General Manager,
Central Railway,
CST, Mumbai.
3. General Manager,
North Central Railway,
Allahabad.
2 OA No.1563/2013
4. Divisional Railway Manager,
North Central Railway,
Agra. - Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. Shailendra Tiwari and
Sh. V.S.R.Krishna)
ORDER
Hon'ble Shri V.N.Gaur, Member (A) The two applicants in this OA were included in a panel of Group-B officers through a selection conducted by the Central Railway (CR) on 17.10.2003. At that time they were working in Jhansi Division under CR. During the years 2002 and 2003, seven new Railway Zones were created, two of them w.e.f. 01.10.2002 and the remaining five w.e.f. 01.04.2003. The respondents invited options from Group-B officers vide letter dated 22.08.2002 for absorption in the new Zones and such option was to be exercised by 23.09.2002. The Railway Board issued detailed instructions regarding fixation of seniority of Group-B officers following re-organisation of the Zones. The applicants at the time of their selection in 2003 had given option for posting in Jhansi Division, which had become part of the North Central Railway (NCR) (para 11 of the Counter dated 10.03.2014). In accordance with Railway Board's instructions dated 13.05.2003, the lien of the applicants 3 OA No.1563/2013 continued to be with the CR. Being under the impression that they were not required to give any fresh option for being allocated to NCR, the applicants represented when their lien continued to be held with CR.However, in response to a letter issued by the respondents the applicants gave a fresh option on 24.11.2005, in which they gave an unconditional acceptance for transfer to NCR on bottom seniority principle. The Railway Board in 2010-11 decided to change the system of allotment of promotion quota vacancies in Group-A/Jr. Scale of each Service among various Zonal Railways/Units to form all India Integrated Group-B seniorityin each of the eight departments from the vacancy year 2010-11. On 01.01.2010, a final seniority list of Group-B officers was issued in which the names of the applicants were placed at Sl. Nos.150 & 151. In another similar list issued on 01.01.2011, the names of the applicants were placed at Sl. Nos.140 & 141. The date of promotion of the applicants in both the seniority lists was shown as 12.12.2003. In the next seniority list issued on 20.06.2012, the names of the applicants did not appear without giving any reason for omitting their names. The respondents have stated that as the applicants were transferred to NCR on their own request, as accepted by them 4 OA No.1563/2013 in their option letter in 2005, their seniority has been fixed on bottom seniority principle.
2. The applicants have filed the instant OA with a prayer to quash the seniority list dated 20.06.2012 and to maintain their date of induction to Group-B as on 12.12.2003. During the pendency of the OA, the respondents issued another seniority list on 02.09.2013 in which the names of the applicants were placed at Sl. Nos. 225 & 226. The applicants were allowed to file an amended OA on 11.10.2013, however, they filed a copy of the seniority list dated 02.09.2013 (Annexure A1-A) but failed to question the same in the relief sought in the OA.
3. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that at the time of creation of seven new Zones, the applicants were already working in a Division (Jhansi) which subsequently became part of the NCR. The Railway Board had called for options for absorption in the new zones at a date much prior to the induction of the applicants in Group-B, and therefore, the applicants cannot be faulted for not submitting their option at a time when the same was called for. Though Jhansi Division, where the applicants were posted after selection, was going to be the part of newly created Zone NCR, 5 OA No.1563/2013 the parent CR Zone was authorised by the Railway Board to adhere to the selection process of Group-B for 2003 vacancies falling even in the newly created zones. At the time of selection for Group-B, candidates were asked to give their option for posting after the selection and the applicants had given their option for posting in Jhansi Division. It is, therefore, logical that the persons inducted in Group-B after the last date of exercising option in 2002 should have been accommodated in whichever Railway zone they were posted against the existing vacancy without following the bottom seniority rule. In 2006, when the applicants represented against lien being continuedin CR, another opportunity was given to them to exercise option but, with bottom seniority. The applicants had no choice but to accept the condition for transfer to NCR but the condition put by the respondents was illegal. The respondents are denying the legitimate seniority to the applicants by citing the so-called unconditional undertaking given by them in the year 2006.
4. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, similar matters came up before the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.7,8,9,25 & 38/2006 which were decided by the Tribunal by a common order (Annexure A-9) directing 6 OA No.1563/2013 absorption of the applicants therein in Group-B post in the newly created zone from the date of joining in Group-B post. This judgment was challenged in the High Court of Bilaspur but the Appeal was rejected and the respondents did not file SLP on the recommendations of Addl. Solicitor General. That order of the Tribunal has therefore become final.With regard to the date of absorption in newly created zone, similar view was taken by the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.424 & 425/2009 - Rajendra Naik vs. Union of India, by Jodhpur Bench in OA No.64/2007 -Ram Singh Meena vs. Union of India and others, and by Jaipur Bench in OA No.99/2007 - Ram Babu vs. Union of India and others.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that at the time of re-organisation of the Railway Zones in 2002 and 2003 Inter-Zone transfer of Group-B officers fell in two categories. In the first category, they have given their option in 2002 and in such cases they retained their seniority from the date of their induction in Group-B even on transfer to newly created zone, and the second category was that of officers who were allowed to be absorbed in the newly created zone on their own request after the last date of exercising option. In such cases, in accordance with the rules issued by 7 OA No.1563/2013 the Railway Board vide letter dated 03.12.1977 they were transferred to new zones at bottom seniority in normal course. The applicants in this OA fell in the second category as they were selected in the year 2003 for Group-B post by the CR. It was also stipulated by the Railway Board that the officers selected will hold lien in the Zone which conducted the recruitment. The applicants, therefore, continued to be the part of Central Zone till they gave an unconditional request for their absorption in the newly created Zone of NCR at bottom seniority basis. After so many years, now the applicants cannot raise this issue by going back on the undertaking given by them in 2006 at the time of their absorption in NCR. Referring to the seniority listsissued on 01.01.2010 and 01.01.2011, learned counsel stated that these seniority lists were prepared taking into account likely number of inductions to be made against the vacancies of 2010-11 and 2011-12. It had been made clear in the letter dated 23.12.2011 that these lists were not exhaustiveso as to include all the Group-B officers of S&T Department of Indian Railways. These lists of 2010 and 2011 covered the officers of Group-B only upto 2005-06. The applicants' name did not figure in the revised seniority list issued on 20.06.2012. With 8 OA No.1563/2013 regard to the judgments of various Benches of this Tribunal, referred to above, the learned counsel stated that though the respondents have implemented these judgments, but the rules regarding the fixation of seniority and absorption on the request of the officers remains unchanged and the same is applicable to the applicants as well. The judgment of Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal has been challenged before the High Court of Orissa by filing WP (C) No.28444/2011.
6. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The issue that is to be decided is whether the applicant should have been transferred from CR to NCR on bottom seniority when he was selected to Group-Bagainst vacancies in Jhansi Division, which later became part of NCR.
7. It is undisputed that the applicant was working in Jhansi Division prior to his selection to Group-B which fell under the jurisdiction of CR. In 2002 and 2003 when the new zones were created including the NCR to which Jhansi Division got transferred, the Railway Board authorised the parent Railway, i.e. CR, to conduct Group-B selection for the year 2003 for the Divisions transferred to new zones also but the lien of the selected candidates would continue to be maintained by CR. The instructions regarding transfer of staff 9 OA No.1563/2013 to the new Zones also stipulated that the parent Zone would keep in view its own requirements of staff while doing such exercise. It is also undisputed that the applicant was asked to give option at the time of his selection to Group-B and he chose to remain at Jhansi Division. The fact that after selection they were posted to Jhansi Division shows that vacancies existed in that Division. From the records, we do not find any reason for the decision of the Railway Board to retain the lien of the newly selected Group-B officers with the parent Railway and not allowing them to migrate to the Zone against whose post they were selected. The respondents have also not pleaded that the parent Railway was short of officers and that is why they would not transfer the lien of the applicants to the new Zones.
8. In the counter filed by the respondents, the reason for the name of the applicants appearing in the seniority list issued in 2010 and 2011 is attributed to an inadvertent error. The circumstances leading to the decision to form for an All India seniority list of Group-B officers have been dealt with in detail in the counter but on the issue of denying the applicants seniority from the date of their selection to Group- B in 2003 has not been dealt with except for the fact that 10 OA No.1563/2013 their request for transfer had been dealt with under normal rule of bottom seniority governing inter-Zone transfers.
9. With regard to the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, the respondents have admitted that the order of Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal in OA Nos.7, 8, 9, 25 & 38 of 2006 was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Jabalpur and the proposal for filing the SLP against that order was not agreed to by the ASG. It has been stated that the order of Jabalpur Bench has been implemented but the policy governing seniority on transfer on own request has remained unchanged. The order dated 08.12.2010 passed by the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal has been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in WP (C) No.28444/2011 and the same is pending at present. The counter reply, however, does not refer to any stay granted by the Hon'ble High Court. The orders passed by the Jodhpur and Jaipur Benches of this Tribunal have been implemented by the respondents.
10. One of the issues before the Jabalpur Bench in OA Nos.7, 8, 9, 25 & 38 of 2006 was that the selection of the applicants therein was conducted by SECR and after appointment in Group-B post the applicants continued to 11 OA No.1563/2013 work in the SECR (newly created zone). By applying the same principle of retention of lien with the parent zone which conducted the selection processthe applicants' request for transfer to SECR was accepted only after they gave undertaking to abide by bottom seniority. The Jabalpur Bench took a view that taking into account the instructions of the Railway Board and other factors, the applicants were entitled to permanent absorption in SECR from the date of their posting in that Zone. In another OA No.570/2005 Pardeep Kumar Pardhan vs. UOI, the Tribunal took the same view.In a similar matter Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.64/2007 allowed the absorption of the applicant in the zone where he was posted prior to his selection in Group- B. The order of Jaipur Bench in OA No.99/2007 would not be relevant in the present case as the dispute in that case related to the option given by the applicant in response to the Railway Board circular dated 22.08.2002 while the applicants in the present OA were selected after that period for exercising option was over. The Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.424 & 425/2009 taking note of the order of the Jabalpur Bench (supra) took the same view.
12 OA No.1563/2013
11. As the issue involved in the present OA is the same which was adjudicated by Jabalpur Bench in OA Nos. 7, 8, 9, 25 & 38 of 2006 and followed by Jodhpur and Cuttack Benches of this Tribunal in the OAs quoted above, we are bound by the views already taken by coordinate benches of this Tribunal on the issue. The applicants are, therefore, entitled to their seniority to be counted from the date they were posted in Jhansi Division after selection to Group B.
12. The OA is, accordingly, allowed. No costs.
( V.N. Gaur ) ( A.K.Bhardwaj ) Member (A) Member (J) February , 2016 'sd'