Karnataka High Court
The Union Of India vs T Sashikanta S/O Of G .Thimmanna on 11 January, 2017
Author: Raghvendra S. Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra S. Chauhan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Dated this the 11th day of January 2017
Present
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
And
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
Writ Petition No.110774/2014 (S-CAT)
Between
1. The Union of India,
Represented by its General Manager,
South Western Railway,
Hubli-580020.
2. South Western Railway,
Represented by its
Chief Personnel Officer,
Hubli-580023.
3. Divisional Railway Manager,
South Western Railway,
Hubli-580020. ...Petitioners
(By Sri Ajay U. Patil, Advocate)
And:
Sri. T.Sashikanta,
S/o G.Thimmanna,
Loco Pilot Gr.I (Goods),
Power Runing Control (PRC),
Under Senior Divisional
Mechanical Engineer,
South Western Railway, Hubli-580020. ...Respondent
(vide order dt. 22.08.2016 service of notice on respondent held
sufficient)
2
This petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated
12.11.2013 passed in O.A. No.5/2010 on the file of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (produced vide
Annexure-A).
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN, J, made the following:
ORDER
The Union of India is aggrieved by the order dated 12.11.2013, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, whereby the learned Tribunal has directed, for the fourth time, the Union of India to redo the seniority list and to review the promotion in the cadre of Loco Pilot Grade-II and Loco Pilot Grade I (Goods) and Loco Pilot Passenger Grade II, in accordance with the direction issued by the Tribunal in its previous orders. The said exercise was directed to be carried out "within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order". However, instead of complying with the repeated directions issued by the learned Tribunal, the appellant has chosen to challenge the same before this Court.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent, Mr. T. Sashikanta Thimmanna, was appointed as a Loco Pilot Grade-I (Goods) with the South Western Railways ('SWR', for 3 short). On 01.04.2003, the officials of the SWR called for objections for revision of seniority list of Loco Pilot Goods Grade-II. At the relevant time, Mr. T. Sashikanta was working as a Senior Assistant Loco Pilot (SALP) in Guntakal Railway Division (South Central Railway). He opted for the SWR with protection of seniority. Subsequently, by order dated 27.10.2004, certain sections of Guntakal Division were merged with the Hubli Division. Therefore, Mr. T. Sashikanta was transferred to Hubli Division along with his post. His date of entry, into the grade of Senior Assistant Loco Pilot, was entered in his service records as 04.07.2003. The same was confirmed, subsequently, by order dated 15.12.2004.
3. The staff, who came along with their post from the Guntakal Division of South Central Railway ('SCR', for short), sought the benefit of protection of their seniority. A dispute arose between the Hubli Division employees, and the employee like Mr. T.Sashikanta with regard to their seniority. The said issue was raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.213/2006. By order dated 22.12.2006, the learned Tribunal issued directions to the Union of India, and directed 4 the appellants to redraw the seniority of the Senior Assistant Loco Pilots.
4. Even, subsequently, two original applications, namely O.A. No.195/2007 and O.A. No.463/2007 were filed before the learned Tribunal dealing with the same exact legal issue. By common order dated 27.01.2009, the learned Tribunal again directed the appellants to prepare the seniority list, initially, a list of Senior Assistant Loco Pilots of Hubli Division as on 31.10.2004, and then to prepare a comprehensive seniority list including the officials of Guntakal Division showing their position as on 01.11.2004.
5. However, according to Mr. Sashikanta, he was not assigned the correct seniority by the appellants. Therefore, he challenged the provisional seniority list of Senior Assistant Loco Pilots. He further challenged the rejection of his representation dated 21.04.2009, and further challenged the final seniority list dated 03.06.2005 before the learned Tribunal. By order dated 12.11.2013, the learned Tribunal allowed the original application, and again issued a direction to the appellant to redo the seniority list in a particular 5 manner and to reconsider his promotion, as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal before this Court.
6. Mr. Ajay U. Patil, the learned counsel for the appellant, has relied on the case of Vijaysingh and others Vs. Union of India and others [Writ Petition Nos.61115- 61128/2012 decided by this Court on 24.02.2015] in order to buttress his plea that the impugned order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be set aside and, in fact, deserves to be remanded back to the learned Tribunal for its re-decision. According to him, the issue in the case of Vijaysingh and others (supra) is identical to the issue which was raised by Mr. T. Sashikanta. Since the case in Vijaysingh and others (supra) was remanded back by this Court to the Tribunal for re-decision, the same order needs to be passed by this Court even in the present case.
7. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned order and considered the decision of this Court in the case of Vijaysingh and others (supra).
8. The position being taken by the learned counsel is highly misplaced. For, in the case of Vijaysingh and others 6 (supra), the contention raised by the appellants, therein, before the Court was that the learned Tribunal had mechanically dismissed the Original Application filed by them, ostensibly, on the ground that it had issued direction in O.A. No.213/2006. The Original Application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal without considering and examining the contentions and counter-contentions raised before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, this Court was of the opinion that the contentions and counter-contentions needed to be considered and decided by the learned Tribunal. In such circumstances, this Court, by its judgment dated 24.02.2015, remanded the case to the learned Tribunal.
9. However, such is not the position in the present case. According to the learned Tribunal since Mr. T. Sashikanta was aggrieved by the seniority list and by the seniority assigned to him, he had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, and had sought an information from the appellant, whether the seniority list was prepared in accordance with the directions issued by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.213/2006, O.A. No.195/2007 and O.A. No.463/2007? To the said query, the appellants themselves 7 had replied that "the seniority list had not been re-drawn on the basis of the directions issued by the learned Tribunal". The response given by the appellants was placed by Mr. T. Sashikanta before the learned Tribunal. According to the learned Tribunal, the said response has not been questioned by the appellants. Thus, the appellants had admitted the fact that the revised seniority lists were not in accordance with the directions issued by the learned Tribunal. It is, in these circumstances, that the learned Tribunal has again directed the appellants to reconsider the promotions made, and to re-draw the seniority. Therefore, the case of Vijaysingh and others (supra) is clearly distinguishable on factual matrix. Hence, the learned counsel is not justified in pleading that even in the present case, the impugned order, namely the order dated 12.11.2013 should be set aside, and the case should be remanded back to the learned Tribunal.
10. Moreover, this Court fails to understand that since the appellants have merely been directed to reconsider the case, to review the promotion in the cadre of Loco Pilot Grade- II, Loco Pilot Grade-I (Goods) and Loco Pilot Passenger Grade II, in accordance with the directions issued by the Tribunal, in 8 such circumstances, how the appellants are aggrieved by such directions? Since the appellants themselves have admitted to the fact that they have not carried out the previous directions issued by the Tribunal in O.A. No.213/2006, O.A. No.195/2007 and O.A. No.463/2007, any direction issued by the learned Tribunal in consonance with its previous directions, obviously, needs to be implemented rather than to be challenged. Hence, the present petition is highly misplaced and misconceived.
For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present case. It is, hereby, dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Kms