Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
T.Ashok Singh vs South Central Railway on 6 August, 2008
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL: HYDERABAD BENCH: HYDERABAD
O.A.No.126 of 2008
Date of Order:06.08.2008
Between:
1. T.Ashok Singh, s/o J.J.Singh,
Working as TTI at Kacheguda.
2. K.Varadha Raghavan, s/o O.P.Krishnamachary,
Working as TTI at Secunderabad.
3. G.K.Satyanarayana Rao, s/o G.K.Kesavarao,
Working as TTI at Secunderabad.
4. N.Rajagopala Rao, s/o N.Ranganadha Rao,
Working as TTI at Kacheguda.
5. K.Chandra Shekar, s/o K.Laxman Rao,
Working as HTTE at Kacheguda.
6. Rajan Tirkey, s/o Sibroo Tirkey,
Working as HTTE at Kacheguda.
7. K.Nageshwar Rao, s/o late K.Babu Rao,
Working as HTTE at Secunderabad.
8. T.Ramakrishna, s/o T.Kesava Das,
Working as HTTE at Secunderabad.
9. M.Subrahmanyam, s/o late M.Bayanna,
Working as HTTE at Secunderabad.
10. M.A.A.Shah, s/o Shaik Ahmed,
Working as HTTE at Secunderabad.
11. Kevin Francis, s/o late H.Francis,
Working as Sr.TTE at Secunderabad.
12. M.Gnayanavardhan, s/o late M.Mallaiah,
Working as Sr.TTE at Secunderabad.
13. G.Srinivasulu, s/o Sri G.V.Sharma,
Working as Sr.TTE at Kacheguda.
14. G.Mallaiah, s/o late Veeraswamy,
Sr.TTE (Retd.), Secunderabad.
15. Md.Shaber Ahmed, s/o late Md.Ibrahim,
Working as Sr.TTE at Kacheguda.
16. E.N.Rajeswar Rao, s/o late E.Narsimharao,
Working as Sr.TTE at Secunderabad.
.........2
2
17. Mathew Sebastian, s/o M.M.Sebastian,
Working as Sr.TTE at Secunderabad.
18. P.Satyanarayana, s/o late P.Rajaiah,
Working as Sr.TTE at Secunderabad.
19. Mohd.Nazeeruddin, s/o Mohd.Kareemuddin,
Working as Sr.TTE at Secunderabad.
20. V.Venugopal, s/o R.Venkatesh,
Working as Sr.TTE at Kacheguda.
21. M.Venkateswara Rao, s/o M.Venkataswamy,
Working as Sr.TTE at Kacheguda.
22. G.Venkataswamy, s/o late G.Jairam,
Working as Sr.TTE at Kacheguda.
23. P.Sai Kumar, s/o P.Sathaiah,
Working as Sr.TTE at Kacheguda.
24. Mohd.Sharfi, s/o A.Q.Sharfi,
Working as Sr.TTE at Secunderabad.
25. G.Satyanarayana, s/o Mallaiah,
Working as Sr.TTE at Kurnool Town.
26. B.Ananda Ravi Kumar, s/o B.Subba Rao,
Working as Sr.TTE at Kacheguda.
27. A.Yadagiri, s/o Jangaiah,
Working as Sr.TTE at Mahabooobnagar.
28. T.S.Venkataramana, s/o T.Harihararao,
Working as Sr.TTE at Secunderabad.
29. N.Purushotham, s/o N.Dattatreyulu,
Working as Sr.TTE at Kacheguda.
30. K.V.Prasad Rao, s/o late Subrahmanyam,
Working as Sr.TTE at Kacheguda.
31. N.Gowtham, s/o Narsimha,
Working as Sr.TTE at Kacheguda.
32. K.Ram Mohan Rao, s/o K.Narayanarao,
Working as TTE at Secunderabad. ..Applicants
a n d
1. South Central Railway, rep., by its
General Manager, Railnilayam, Secunderabad.
.........3
3
2. Chief Personnel Officer, S.C.Railway,
Railnilayam, Secunderabad.
3. Chief Commercial Manager/SC,
S.C.Railway, Secunderabad.
4. Divisional Railway Manager, Hyderabad Division,
S.C.Railway, Secunderabad. ..Respondents
Counsel for the Applicants : Mr.S.Lakshma Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.M.C.Jacob, SC for Rlys.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.LAKSHMANA REDDY , VICE CHAIRMAN
THE HON'BLE MR.R.SANTHANAM, MEMBER (ADMN.)
: ORAL ORDER :
(As per Hon'ble Mr.Justice.P.Lakshmana Reddy, Vice Chairman) Heard Mr.S.Lakshma Reddy, the learned Counsel for the Applicants and Mr.M.C.Jacob, the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents.
2. This application is filed by 32 people of different cadres of checking staff of the respondent-Railway department seeking for a declaration that the action of the respondents in not implementing the benefits of promotion to restructured posts under the Railway Board's letter No.PC-III/2003/CRC/6, dated 9.10.2003 and letter dated 23/26.7.2004 to the applicants in the Ticket Checking cadre, and not promoting the applicants against the 47 restructured posts/vacancies in Hyderabad Division as totally illegal and without jurisdiction, and also for a consequential direction to the respondents to implement the restructuring benefit to all the applicants in the Ticket Checking cadre in Hyderabad Division with effect from 1.11.2003 with all consequential benefits by setting aside the modified order of the 4th respondent issued under letter No.YP/535/2/1/Vol.VII, dated 24.5.2006.
3. The relevant facts in brief are as follows:
The Ministry of Railways with the approval of the President has decided to restructure Group-C & D categories of staff in accordance with revised .........4 4 percentages communicated by the Railway Board, vide its letter dated 9.10.2003.
According to the applicants, though there are 205 sanctioned posts, the respondents have taken into consideration only 199 posts of the cadre strength while working out the percentage of increase in the posts of each cadre of CTI (Chief Ticketing Inspector), TTI (Ticket Travelling Inspector), and HTTE (Head Ticket Travelling Examiner) and for reduction of posts in TTE (Ticket Travelling Examiner) and TCs (Ticket Collectors).
4. The respondents in their reply have admitted that while working out the increase on the basis of percentage, the total cadre strength was taken as 199 and by mistake left out six more posts. The learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that subsequent to the working out of percentage, the respondents have received orders from the Railway Board to add six posts also to the cadre strength. The respondents are working out for revised percentage and the orders will be issued soon. Therefore, we need not go into that aspect.
5. The next area of dispute in this case is whether the excess staff shown in the reply at para 5 against column no.7 of Table-A can be adjusted against the increased posts ?
6. The increased posts in the cadre of CTI on the basis of the cadre strength of 199 is 10, in the cadre of TTI is 16 and in the cadre of HTTE is 5. If the resultant vacancies are also taken into consideration, the vacancies in the cadre of CTI is 10, in the cadre of TTI is 26 and in the cadre of HTTE will be 31. If the excess staff of 3 is deducted from out of 10, vacancies will be 7 in the cadre of CTI. Similarly, if excess staff of 6 is deducted from increased vacancies, it will be 17 (including resultant vacancies) in the cadre of TTI. In the same manner, if excess in the category of HTTE is deducted, the vacancies (including resultant vacancies) will be 11 (17-10).
.........5 5
7. The contention of the applicants is that all the increased posts on the basis of percentage shall be made available for promotion in accordance with the modified procedure viz., without conducting any written test or viva voce and to promote only on the basis of the record of service and the respondents instead of doing so, reduced the restructured posts to be filled up by way of promotion adopting the revised method without written examination, prescribed by the Board for filling up of the restructured vacancies.
8. The only point that arise for consideration in this application is whether the respondents are entitled to deduct the excess posts from out of the increased posts before resorting to filling up of the increased posts by adopting the revised method of filling up the restructured posts ?
9. The learned Counsel for the Applicants contended that the respondents cannot deduct such excess posts and that the Board has not given any such instruction to deduct and that if that deduction is not adopted, the vacancies to be filled up will be 10 posts in the cadre of CTI, 26 posts in the cadre of TTI and 31 posts in the cadre of HTTE by way of promotion on the basis of record of service. The learned Counsel for the Applicants, in the alternative, contended that if at all the excess staff is to be deducted, the excess must be arrived at as on the cut-off date of the Board's letter i.e., 1.11.2003.
10. So far as the alternative argument of the learned Counsel for the Applicants is concerned, the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the respondents have calculated the excess only as on 1.11.2003 and not any subsequent date. In support of his contention, he invited our attention to the table given in the reply, wherein it is categorically stated that the excess is on 31.10.2003.
11. So far as the main contention is concerned, the learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that on account of bifurcation of Hyderabad Division on .........6 6 1.4.2003, several people opted to remain in Hyderabad Division, and therefore, there was excess staff in Hyderabad Division and as the posts are increased on account of re-structuring, the respondents adjusted those excess staff in the increased vacancies and there is nothing wrong in it and that the Board has nowhere stated in its Circular that excess staff cannot be adjusted against the increased vacancies on account of restructuring and on the other hand the Board in its letter dated 9.10.2003 in para 8 stated as follows:
"If prior to issue of these instructions the number of posts existing in any grade in any particular cadre exceeds the number admissible on the revised percentages, the excess may be allowed to continue to be phased out progressively with the vacation of the posts by the existing incumbents."
The learned Counsel contended that from the said paragraph the intention of the Board is very clear that the excess staff shall not be phased out and that they can be adjusted as far as possible and that if even after the adjustment is made there is any excess, such staff to be adjusted progressively as and when the posts are vacated by the existing incumbents.
12. We find considerable force in the contention made on behalf of the respondents. In our considered view, the respondents have rightly deducted the number equivalent to the number of the excess staff from out of the vacancies increased on account of restructuring. However, some more posts will be increased, if the cadre strength is taken as 205 to work out the percentage of increase, and those increased posts are to be filled up by the method prescribed for filling up of the restructured posts by way of promotion.
13. The other contention raised by the applicant is that the respondents have unauthorizedly deducted another one post stating that the said post is transferred to Nanded Division. The learned Counsel for the Applicants contended that the .........7 7 posts increased on account of restructuring in Hyderabad Division cannot be transferred to Nanded Division, and therefore, the transfer of increased post in the cadre of CTI is not permissible.
14. The learned Counsel for the Respondents replied stating that the respondents have not transferred the increased post, but the incumbent, who got promotion against the increased restructured post, later opted to go to Nanded Division and that the resultant vacancy will be filled up in regular course and that it does not amount to transfer of the increased post. We find considerable force in this submission. As the person, who has been transferred to Nanded Division, availed the promotion to restructured post and thereafter opted to go to Nanded Division, it does not amount to transfer of the post and it amounts to transfer of the individual, who availed the benefit of promotion in the process of restructuring.
15. Therefore, we find no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Applicants in this regard.
16. The learned Counsel for the Applicants further contended that according to the reply, the respondents have admitted that there are 33 vacancies to be filled up, even if the cadre strength is 199. The respondents have so far filled up only 16 posts and they have not so far filled up the rest of the 17 posts.
17. Therefore, we consider it fit to give a direction to the respondents to arrive at the increase of posts taking the cadre strength as 205 and then fill up the remaining vacancies by way of promotion by adopting the modified selection procedure from among those, who were working in Hyderabad Division and also who have opted for Hyderabaad Division, prior to the cut-off date i.e., 1.11.2003. This process shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
.........8 8
18. The OA is disposed of accordingly. There shall, however, be no Order as to costs.
( R.SANTHANAM ) (P.LAKSHMANA REDDY ) Member (A) Vice-Chairman Dated:this the 6th day of August, 2008 Dictated in the Open Court *****