Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Anil Verma Aged About 54 Years S/O Shri ... vs Union Of Indian Through General Manager on 7 October, 2010
Reserved CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD ***** (THIS THE 07 DAY OF October, 2010) Honble Dr.K.B.S. Rajan, Member (J) Honble Mr.S. N. Shukla ,Member (A) Original Application No.1495 of 2010 (U/S 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985) Anil Verma aged about 54 years S/o Shri B.B. Verma working as Highly Skilled Mistry under Dy. Chief Engineer, (Construction) N.C. Railway, R/o 808/172 A, Rajrooppur, Allahabad. Applicant Present for Applicant : Shri Sudama Ram, Advocate Versus 1. Union of Indian through General Manager, North Central Railway, Subedarganj, Allahabad. 2. General Manager, North Central Railway, Headquarters Office, Subedarganj, Allahabad. 3. Shri Tarun Beniwal, Deputy Chief Engineer, (Construction) II/North Central Railway, Nawab Yusuf Road, Balaipur, Allahabad. ] 4. Chief Administrative Officer, (Construction), North Central Railway, Headquarters Office, Nawab Yusuf Road, Balaipur, Allahabad. 5. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, DRMs Office, Allahabad. Respondents Present for Respondents : Shri P.N. Rai, Advocate O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon. Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Member-J) The applicant joined as a casual labour in 1981, got the temporary status from 1984 and throughout had been in the construction wing and as of November, 1995 he was placed in the scale of R 4000 6000 (Highly Skilled Mistry). In 1999 the above pay scale was revised to Rs 4500 7000 but later on, in 2002 it was sought to be reduced to Rs 4000 6000 against which OA No. 1449 of 2002 was filed, which was allowed vide Annexure A-12. In the said order, the Tribunal observed that there is no bar for the respondent to repatriate the applicant to his parent unit. This not being the subject matter, review application was filed and the same stood allowed and the aforesaid observation was deleted from the order. Respondents filed a writ petition against the order in review before the High Court and the same was dismissed by judgment dated 13-11-2009. Annexure A-14 order dated 02-07-2009 refers. However, well before the same, the applicant was repatriated to the parent unit vide Annexure A-13 order dated 02-11-2008 which carried with it reversion as well to a group D post and hence, the applicant moved an application against the same in OA No.1342 of 2008 which was allowed and the said order dated 02-11-2008 quashed and set aside by a detailed order vide Annexure A-16. In the said order it was clearly held that the applicant having neither been retrenched nor declared surplus in the construction wing, and there being no shrinkage of work at the Construction Wing, his repatriation and reversion to a lower post is arbitrary and discriminatory. Respondents were permitted to consider the matter afresh in the light of the above view of the Tribunal as well as the Rule position and the Apex Courts judgment and pass a reasoned and speaking order. On the quashing of the order of repatriation by the Tribunal, the respondents too passed an order of cancellation of their order dated 02-11-2008, vide Annexure A17. However, vide Annexure A-1 and A-2, the respondents have again repatriated the applicant and posted to a Group D post. They have issued a speaking order. The applicant has challenged the aforesaid Annexure A-1 and A-2 order.
2. The contention of the applicant is that there is a specific order of the Railway Board that those who are in the Construction wing cannot be transferred to open line without reasons and consultation with the Unions. Annexure A-18 order dated 26-02-2010 refers. Again, the counsel for the applicant submitted that there are a number of juniors in the construction wing and allowing them to continue, the applicant has been picked up for repatriation and reversion and this is more on the ground of the applicant having approached the court earlier through O.As and also through Contempt petition. It has also been submitted that the applicant has moved a detailed representation vide annexure A-20 dated 29-06-2000 to the General Manager, North Central Railways through proper channel, but the same was not placed before the addressee authority by the respondents on legal advice obtained, as informed to the applicant when he applied under RTI. This representation was followed by a reminder dated 30-07-2010. The applicant has prayed for quashing of the impugned annexure 1 and 2 orders and also sought stay of the said order as an interim relief.
3. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the representation being pending, this Court may issue direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation within a time schedule. He has also contended that it is not known whether those juniors who were allowed to continue in the Construction wing belong to the same unit/trade as of the applicant.
4. Notice to the respondents who may file their counter within four weeks, which stands accepted by the counsel for the respondents. Let pleadings be completed for which purpose, list the case before the Registrar on 20th December, 2010.
5. As regards interim relief, the applicant at present is stated to have not been permitted to function in the construction wing nor has he joined the parent unit in the Group D post. His hesitation/predicament in not joining a lower post is obvious. When he has made the representation dated 29th June, 2010, there seems no valid reason as to why the same has not been placed before the General Manager. This is the third round of litigation and despite clear reflection of the reasons for quashing the earlier reversion order dated 02-11-2010, vide paragraph 37 of Annexure A-16, respondents have issued the speaking order and reversion order. The decision of the Railway Board not to revert the Construction Wing employees to the open line without reasons and without consulting the Unions has also been ignored. Prima facie, there appears to be a sense of unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the act of the respondents in passing the impugned order. The applicant has made out a prima facie case in his favour. Balance of convenience and interest of justice are in favour of him being granted the interim relief as prayed for.
6. In view of the above, an interim order is passed whereby the operation of the impugned order dated 29-06-2010 (Annexure A-1) is stayed till further orders. The applicant was placed in the same position prior to the issue of the impugned order. As and when the applicant presents himself before the concerned authority, the latter shall entertain him and shall allow him to function in the Construction wing.
7. Meanwhile, it is open to the General Manager North Central Railways, to consider the pending representation of the applicant and decide the same.
Member-A Member-J
Sushil
.
??
??
??
??
1