Madras High Court
Union Of India Owning Southern Railways vs The Registrar on 18 January, 2018
Bench: S.Manikumar, N.Authinathan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.01.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.AUTHINATHAN
W.P.Nos.35449 to 35551 of 2016
and
W.M.P.Nos.30521 to 30523 of 2016
1.Union of India owning Southern Railways
Rep. by its General Manager
Park Town, Chennai - 600 003
2.The Divisional Railway Manager
Chennai Division, Southern Railways
Park Town, Chennai - 600 003
3.The Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager
Chennai Division, Southern Railways
Park Town, Chennai - 600 003
4.The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer
Chennai Division, Southern Railways
Park Town, Chennai - 600 003
5.The Assistant Personnel Officer, Traffic,
O/o The DRM, Chennai Division,
Southern Railways, Chennai - 600 003 .. Petitioners in all the
writ petitions
Vs.
1.The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal
Madras Bench, Chennai - 600 104
2.Southern Railway Mazdoor Union
Recognised Union, Rep. by its
General Secretary
193/B, Gandhi Irwin Road
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008 .. Respondents 1 and 2 in all
http://www.judis.nic.in
three writ petitions
2
3.K.Saleemdeen
4.B.Ravichandar, IRTS
5.D.W.Samuel .. Respondents 3 to 5 in all
three writ petitions
6.K.R.Manokaran .. Respondent No.3 in
W.P. No.35450/2016
7.P.Venkatesalu .. Respondent No.3 in
W.P. No.35451/2016
Prayer:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records of the 1st
respondent in O.A. Nos.694 to 696 of 2016 including the Common Order
dated 12.8.2016 and quash the same.
For Petitioners in all the : Mr.A.Thyagarajan,
writ petitions SC for Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy,
in all the writ petitions SC for Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar
-----
COMMON ORDER
(Made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.) These writ petitions have been filed against the common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai dated 12.08.2016 made in O.A.Nos.694 to 696 of 2016. Original Applications have been filed by the respondents 2 to 7 to set aside the orders passed by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer and communicated by the Assistant Personnel Officer, Traffic, Office of the DRM, Chennai Division, Southern Railways, and to declare that the pin pointing of posts in the cadre of ECRC staff and http://www.judis.nic.in consequential transfers as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Railway 3 Board's directives and malafide and to direct Southern Railways to implement periodical transfer policy as mandated by the Railway Board directives.
2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions are that:
Cadre of Enquiry cum Reservation Clerk (ECRC) is structured as follows, after the implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission's recommendation and the cadre position as on date of filing of the writ petitions are shown hereunder:
Sl.
Category Scale Existing Revised
No
1 Enquiry-cum- Rs.5200-20200 + 172 87
Reservation Clerk GP 2800
ECRC/II
2 Reservation Rs.9300-34800 + 247 209
Supervisor Grade II, GP 4200
RS/II
3 Chief Reservation Rs.9300 - 34800 + 56 84
Officer, CRS GP 4600
Total 475 380
3. The category of Enquiry cum Reservation Clerks, Booking Clerks, Goods Clerks, Parcel Clerks, Ticket Checking Staff of the Commercial Department fall under the Public Image Category and they hold sensitive posts and they come into contact with public. Accordingly, the Railway Board, by its circular dated 26th June 2002, stipulated that they have to be shifted to a different place in every four years. The thrust of these http://www.judis.nic.in 4 instructions is on transfer from one place to another. However, when transfer of such employees to a different place is not possible, they are to be shifted to a different seat in the same place to meet the requirement of periodical transfer.
4. According to the petitioners, Chennai Division of Southern Railway has circulated a list of the staffs, who have completed more than 4 years of tenure in their present station as on 31.3.2016 and are due for periodical transfer for the year 2016, under circular dated 13.1.2016. The supervisory officials were directed to notify the employees and advised to forward the representations from the employees in this regard along with proper proof in support of their claim on or before 29.01.2016 and the Supervisory official were further advised that they should indicate, inclusion or deletion in the proposed list of employees for Periodical Transfer.
5. It is further submitted that Railway Board has issued an instruction bearing No.E.(NG)I-2013/TR/7, dated 21.9.2015, by way of implementing the judgment dated 31.10.2013, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Writ Petition (C) No.82/2011 to ensure more transparency and consideration in the matters of transfer. The circular stipulated that a committee comprising of three officers namely one from Personnel Branch, second from the concerned department and the third http://www.judis.nic.in 5 one outside the department, will recommend the transfers postings of the Group 'C' employees. The competent authority to accept the recommendations of the placement committee shall be the cadre controlling officer [JAG 1 SAG 1 Sr. Scale] of the department or the Branch Head.
6. According to the petitioners, all the transfers were recommended by a Committee as stipulated by the Board and the recommendations were accepted by the JA Grade Officer, that is the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager. Therefore, the transfer has been done without any malafide and also following the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. All the transfers have been approved by the Placement Committee and hence the said order cannot be assailed on the ground of malafide.
7. It is further submitted that pinpointing is a process of distributing the available number of posts across the various units/offices either due to increase or decrease in the number of post either due to restructuring or any other reasons. Generally it is resorted to at the time of Restructuring of the Cadre. Normally the recognised Union is consulted.
The Commercial Department initiated the proposal for pinpointing of the three categories namely ECRC, Commercial Clerk and Ticket Checking staff in October 2015.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
8. According to the petitioners, the Divisional Secretary, Southern Railway Mazdoor Union, Chennai Division, was requested to offer his views in this regard at the earliest to finalise the revised pinpointing of posts in the Commercial Department under letter No.M/P[SJ/676/III/12/Comml., dated 15.10.2015. Further, under letter No.M/P[SJ/676/III/ 12/Comml. dated 15.12.2015, a reminder was sent to the Divisional Secretary, SRMU, to offer his views. Subsequently, on 8.1.2016, the Divisional Secretary was advised that as no objection was raised, the proposal could be treated as final in order to implement the periodical transfer. Since no objection was raised by the Second Respondent Union, the revised pinpointing was finalized and under letter No.M/P[SJ/676/III/ 12/Comml. dated 21.1.2016, a copy of the pinpointing of posts was circulated to all concerned with the condition that the operation of posts in the stations/ locations would be subject to administrative convenience. In this case, the 2nd Respondent Union was advised to attend the meeting for pinpointing at the divisional level, which they have not done despite several reminders.
9. Further according to the petitioners, subsequently in the Zonal Permanent Negotiating Machinery, the 2nd respondent Union raised the issue as Subject No.2/2015 and demanded issuing of clear guidelines to Madras Division on these sensitive issues in the interest of Industrial Peace. It was decided in the Permanent Negotiating Machinery (PNM) http://www.judis.nic.in 7 meeting, that the issue of pinpointing of the Commercial Staff will be discussed at the Head Quarters with SRMU by the Chief Commercial Manager and decision shall be taken. In pursuance of the decision in the PNM Meeting held in December 2015 with the 2nd Respondent Union, the pinpointing was finalized at the Chief Commercial Manager Level after negotiation with the Union. The Chief Commercial Manager vide letter dated 29.2.2016 addressed to the President, SRMU, conveyed the decisions taken after three rounds of discussions with the 2nd respondent Union. A copy was addressed to the Divisional Railway Manager, Chennai Division the second Petitioner herein. The pinpointing was modified as follows:-
"(a) The Division's published pinpointing with regard to Commercial Clerks - clubbing all the Commercial Clerks under one Centralised unit at Madras Central, will be bifurcated into two units of:
Parcel and Luggage Office and Booking Office and others.
(b) With regard to the category of ECRCs, the pinpointing given by the Division stands good. In fact, the Division in its circulated pinpointing for ECRCs category, is trying to protect 90 posts by using them purposefully and showing them in the pinpointing. The SRMU representatives raised an additional issue about http://www.judis.nic.in the yardsticks followed for the work study on the 8 basis of which 52 ECRC posts were surrendered.
Their contention is that the work study report was based on a faulty yardstick of 180 requisitions - instead of 140 transactions and hence, needs to be reopened. However, the Commercial Circular 23 of 2011, dated 1.6.2011, clearly stipulates 180 transactions as the yardstick. If at all, this aspect was to be taken up, a separate reference was to be made to Railway Board, to confirm the yardstick to be taken for the work study. Hence, the pinpointing as decided by the Division was to hold good.
(c) Regarding the pinpointing for the ticket checking staff, the Squad strength was to stand restored from 30 to 155."
10. Based on the communication by the Chief Commercial Manager dated 29.2.2016, a revised pinpointing was issued by the Madras Division under letter No.M/P(S)678/II/ 12/COMML dated 24.3.2016 for the three categories of Commercial clerks, Ticket Checking and ECRC cadres of Commercial Department of Chennai Division.
11. According to the petitioners, Madras Division of Southern Railway issued orders transferring the Commercial department staff under order dated 31.3.2016. In this case, all the transfers were recommended by a Placement Committee as stipulated by the Board and the http://www.judis.nic.in 9 recommendations were accepted by the Junior Administrative Grade Officer, that is, the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, the 3rd petitioner herein. It is further stated that in the periodical transfers, the crux of the instructions that the employees have to be posted without disturbing their place of residence has been applied. In the cadre of ECRC (Enquiry cum Reservation Clerk), the entire category of Chief Reservation Supervisors were posted to Stations within Chennai area and none of them were posted outside the Chennai area. The Juniors namely Reservation Supervisor II and ECRC II have to be posted outside to accommodate the Senior Chief Reservation Supervisors. In the case of the ECRC category, 75% of the staff were transferred within the Chennai area. Moreover, due to internet booking, the cadre strength has been reduced.
12. Aggrieved over the same, the respondents herein filed Original Application No.694 of 2016, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, challenging the transfer orders of the ECRC cadre mainly on the ground that the employees have to be transferred within the same office, that no option was given as was done in the year 2015, that to avoid inter- sectional transfer, the pin-pointing was done with mala fide motive, that the 27 posts of ECRC which were restored and had it been taken into account, the staff could have been transferred within the same office/building, that the opposition to surrender and subsequent http://www.judis.nic.in 10 restoration of 27 post had infuriated the 3rd and 4th petitioners, and that staff were posted in violation of the pinpointing and that the petitioners herein failed to follow the decision in the PNM meeting held in 2015 and that the Railway Board's letter dated 3.4.2012 was not followed in the periodical transfer of the ECRC cadre.
13. A reply statement was filed resisting the Original Application by the petitioners herein, mainly on the ground that Board's policies have been followed by transferring the employees within the Chennai area and also without distributing the place of residence, that in terms of the decision by the Chief Commercial Manager dated 29.2.2016, the issue of yardstick whether 140 transactions or 180 transactions had to be referred to the Railway Board, that in terms of the Commercial Circular No.23 of 2011, dated 1.6.2011, only 180 transactions had to be applied, that the restoration of 27 posts of ECRC communicated to the Division on 29/3/2016 had nothing to do with the periodical transfer, that the money value for the 52 posts have already been surrendered and that the same has not been restored to Chennai Division, that the pinpointing of posts has nothing to do with the periodical transfer and that due to the internet booking the cadre strength has been periodically reduced and therefore the employees under the periodical transfer could not be retained in Chennai alone.
14. The Tribunal vide common order dated 12.8.2016, disposed of http://www.judis.nic.in 11 the Original Applications in O.A.Nos.694 to 696 of 2016. In paragraph No.20 of the order, the Tribunal held as follows:
"20. As such, I am of the considered view that it is for the applicant association to submit their detailed suggestion in the form of dossiers to the Railway Administration and whereupon only, there could be fruitful discussions between them and conclusion could be arrived at. The Railway Administration could undertake the work study and after discussion with the Union, finalise the pin pointing. Pending such exercise as highlighted by me supra, as far as ECRC category is concerned, the decision arrived at as per Annexure A/21 can be proceeded further and similarly, the decision taken to switch over to 155 number of Ticket Checking staff category, the Railway Administration can proceed further. Regarding the Commercial Clerks are concerned, as ordered supra, the Railway Administration could with the help of the willing staff proceed further and do the needful. The entire process shall be completed as expeditiously as possible."
http://www.judis.nic.in 12
15. Aggrieved by the above order, the writ petitioners / Railways filed the instant writ petitions on the following grounds:
(i) That the transfer orders are legal and fully constitutional and in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Railway Board. In these transfers the applicants / respondents have neither proved any violation of Rules nor any malafide. The respondents 3 to 7 have failed to note that the staff have to be necessarily transferred to other units/office/Centre situated outside their present station and that the interests of the existing staff and their requests for a transfer to Chennai area have to be taken into account. The Tribunal failed to see that the transfer is in accordance with the Railway Board's letter dated 3.4.2012. The circulars lay emphasis and points out that the thrust of the instructions is on transfer from one place to another. It is only when transfer of such employees to a different place is not possible they are to be shifted to a different non-sensitive seat of the same place to meet the requirement of periodical transfer.
Hence the administration could shift them to a different place. The contention of the 2nd respondent that they must be transferred only within the same place of residence and within the same building is against the spirit of the guideline. The contentions would only embolden the vested interests that they are immune from any transfer and disciplinary action. In interpreting the Rules and guidelines the spirit of the Rules and guidelines are not to be ignored. The Tribunal failed to see that the 2nd http://www.judis.nic.in 13 respondent Union was extended several opportunities to enable finalization of the pinpointing at the Divisional level and the same was finalised with the Chief Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, on 29.2.2016 in pursuance to the PNM Meeting and after holding several rounds of discussions and consultation. The 2nd Respondent Union is therefore estopped and cannot resile from this position.
(ii) That the Tribunal failed to see many employees have submitted requests and they have been transferred to their place of choice. One of the purpose of pinpointing is to identify the vacant posts so that the staff can make their requests. It is submitted that the 2nd Respondent has chosen not to challenge the transfer orders wherein the requests of the employees were considered. There is no guideline or Rule that only option has to be called for. In all the impugned orders the employees who have completed more than four years have not expressed their desire for a transfer and more than 190 employees who exercised their option were transferred to their place of choice.
(iii) That the Tribunal failed to consider that the impugned orders are in accordance with the spirit of the guidelines issued by the Railway Board. Rule 103 (51) Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol. I 1985 stipulates that the Transfer means the movement of a Railway servant from one headquarters station in which he is employed, to another such http://www.judis.nic.in 14 station, either to take up the duties of a new post, or in consequence of a change of his headquarters. The Tribunal failed to see that that the pinpointing has been rightly done and the same was revised after negotiations with the applicant Union. The pinpointing has no role in transferring the employees as to who has to be transferred where is left to the administration. That the process of pinpointing has no nexus with the periodical transfer and the Union's contention that the transfer has to be ordered according to the pinpointing is incorrect.
(iv) That the Tribunal failed to consider that there is no right vested with the transferred to work only in a particular area or place. Transfer is an incidence of service and place of transfer by choice, is not a matter of right under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In fact the Respondents' prayer is to the detriment of other employees who have served in areas other than Chennai and who want to come to Chennai Area. The Tribunal failed to see that that the respondents herein, before the Tribunal have placed the matter of Transfer as a fundamental right and demanded that they be transferred to the place of their choice. Retention of the employees in the public image categories for a long time in the same place would encourage corruption and develop vested interests. Moreover no malafide or violation of rules could be attributed in all these transfers as it has been recommended by a Placement Committee constituted in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble http://www.judis.nic.in 15 Supreme Court in WP (C) 82 of2011.
(v) That the Tribunal has erred in finding that the respondents in the Original Application have flouted the decision taken in the PNM and proceeded to issue the proceedings dated 21.1.2016 unilaterally. The Tribunal should have found that SRMU was given reasonable opportunity before the passing of the orders dated 21.1.2016 and 24.3.2016. The Tribunal has overlooked that the formula of 180 transactions was laid down by the Railway Board so as to have uniformity among all the zonal Railways and Southern Railway cannot have a different formula in 140 transactions. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the letter dated 29.2.2016 of the Chief Commercial Manager clearly points out the three rounds of discussion they had with SRMU prior to finalising pinpointing.
(vi) That the Tribunal has omitted to consider that pinpointing is a sequel to restructuring while periodical transfer is undertaken as per the policy of the Railway Board regarding periodical transfer and pinpointing has nothing to do with periodical transfer. The Tribunal failed to see that the transfer orders are not based on the reduction of the 52 posts alone and it is based on the periodical transfer policy, which contemplates that the employee who has completed four years of service in a particular place in the public image category, has to be transferred from his place to another place. Therefore, there is no nexus between the reduction of http://www.judis.nic.in 16 posts and the periodical transfer. The Tribunal failed to see that the reduction or the increase in the cadre strength has no relevance with regard to periodical transfers, which is based on the policy of the Ministry of Railways. The fact that the Union is challenging the transfers of most of the employees within Chennai area itself is enough proof that there are vested interests to protect a section of the staff. The Tribunal failed to see that no employee" would volunteer for a transfer willingly on periodical account when he is given the choice to remain in the same place. The Tribunal's order allowing them to continue in their place without carrying out the periodical transfer is unheard of in service jurisprudence.
(vii) That the Tribunal failed to consider that the squad strength has been increased from 30 to 155 based on the discussions with the Chief Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, on 29.2.2016. However, the full strength of 155 cannot be achieved overnight as there is a total shortfall of 107 vacancies in the Ticket Checking category and the bulk of them have been drafted to man the sleeper coaches in long distance trains on priority basis. The Tribunal failed to see that restoration of the 27 ECRC posts does not alter the periodical transfers and does not enhance the employees choice of getting a transfer within the same place or building. That the Tribunal failed to see that Work study is carried out only to assess the manpower requirement in a surplus category and the same is not done in respect of all the categories where there is http://www.judis.nic.in 17 requirement of manpower.
(viii) That the Tribunal failed to consider that the Commercial circular No.23 of 2011 contains the policy decision of the Ministry of Railways and is therefore, binding on the entire Railways. Tribunal failed to see that the decision taken in the Zonal PNM cannot have binding effect in so far as it is not in conformity with the Commercial Circular No.23/2011, which stipulates the yardstick of 180 transactions uniformly for the entire Railways. The Tribunal failed to see that the clubbing of the sections in a Station is permissible and the same has been validly done by the petitioners. The Tribunal failed to see that the work study cannot be carried out before pinpointing as work study pertains to the surrender of man power whereas pinpointing pertains to the identification of posts in a particular station. That the Tribunal failed to see that the internal communication, views taken by the various authorities cannot be relied on by the respondents, in support of their case. The Tribunal failed to see that the public interest prevails over the private interest especially in the public image categories such as the ECRC, Ticket Checking and Commercial Clerk categories. That the Tribunal failed to see that the Original Application has been filed to advance the ideological aspirations of the 2nd respondent union and the Hon'ble Tribunal failed to see that the rules and regulations in ordering the periodical transfers, have been followed. Further, no malafides or violation of rules was proved by the http://www.judis.nic.in 18 2nd respondent herein.
(ix) That the 2nd respondent, as a recognised union is entitled to consultation and cannot take over the role of the administration and stipulate the mode of transfer and as to which employee should be transferred where. The employees who have been transferred have not raised any grievance against the order of transfer and the 2nd respondent by reason of its vested interests is attempting to espouse the cause of employees, a majority of whom are not aggrieved and have not questioned the transfers effected. Further the employees, more particularly, those who are in the category which interacts with the public are liable to be transferred for proper and efficient administration and the prerogative is with the employer. The only grounds on which transfers can be agitated are malafides and violation of the rules. The 2nd respondent, as the recognised union can participate in the PNM but cannot decide as to who is to be transferred where and in what manner the transfers should be carried out. That the order of the Tribunal and the directions issued, in effect amount to allowing the union to step into the shoes of the administration of the Railways, which is neither legal nor proper.
16. On the above grounds submissions were made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners.
17. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the second respondent http://www.judis.nic.in 19 submitted that the action of pin pointing is unilateral, without involving the Union. The places of work have been merged and work norms are not indicated as to how it was worked out. He further submitted that about 2730 posts at 140 states in 400 locations are involved and more than 11 categories of posts (grade pay) are involved. It is the further contention of the learned senior counsel for the second respondent that there are no files to show how third respondent increased/decreased/distributed the said 2730 posts and prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
18. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
19. Perusal of the material records would show that three original applications were filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai by the Southern Railway Mazdoor Union (SRMU) and other railway employees against pinpointing of posts and transfer orders passed by the Railway Administration / petitioners herein against three categories of posts in the Commercial Department viz., Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerks (ECRC), Commercial Clerks and Ticket Checking Staff.
20. The grievance of the respondents herein is that the decisions taken at the Zonal Permanent Negotiating Machinery (PNM) meeting held in the month of December, 2015 in the presence of the General Manager http://www.judis.nic.in 20 has not been followed by the Railway Administration / petitioners herein. The decisions taken in the Zonal PNM meeting held in December, 2015 are as follows:
"Sub No.2/2015: During the discussion, it was agreed to advise MAS Division for proper action in the matters of pinpointing. However, SRMU raised an objection on the tone and tenor of the letter addressed to the SRMU with the proposed pinpointing in which it was stated that if the proposal of pinpointing is not agreed to by Union, the posts can be surrendered.
In view of this letter, SRMU has not reacted and requested the intervention of Headquarters. At this juncture, CCM mentioned that the issue of pinpointing of a commercial staff will be discussed at Headquarters with SRMU and decision shall be taken.
*** Sub No.3/2015: The subject may be further discussed with SDGM. During discussion, SRMU pointed out that yardstick should be worked based on yardstick of 140 transactions and the same was agreed to. As such as the workstudy as above http://www.judis.nic.in will be taken up for review and fresh work will 21 be conducted based on 140 transactions duly associating SRMU representatives (fresh workstudy).
SRMU also pointed out that while taking a final decision on workstudy report, instructions issued by Railway Board under RBE No.23/2012, dated 21.02.2012, should strictly be followed by which views of SRMU should be given due consideration before taking decision."
(emphasis added)
21. In spite of the above said decisions taken in the Zonal Permanent Negotiating Machinery meeting, before issuing the orders impugned before the Tribunal, neither a discussion has taken place with the respondents herein nor proper work study was conducted by the petitioners herein. The Tribunal has also observed that during the hearing, it came to light that the respondents herein have simply and orally participated in the discussions and has not made any written submission in the form of a booklet and also set out the objective facts before the Railway Administration for consideration.
22. Taking into consideration all the above aspects, the Tribunal in order to solve the stalemate and the deadlock between Railway Administration and the Union, vide impugned order dated 12.08.2016, http://www.judis.nic.in 22 directed the Railway Administration / petitioners herein to implement their own decisions taken at the Zonal PNM meeting and further called upon the respondents herein / SRMU to submit their detailed suggestions in the form of dossiers to the Railway Administration and thereafter to hold discussion and arrive at a conclusion. The Tribunal has further ordered that the Railway Administration / petitioners herein could undertake the work study and after discussion with the Union, finalise the pin pointing of posts. The Tribunal however went on to hold that pending such exercise as highlighted above in its order, as far as ECRC category is concerned, the decision arrived at as per Annexure A/21 can be proceeded further and similarly, the decision taken to switch over to 155 number of Ticket Checking staff category, the Railway Administration can proceed further and as far as Commercial Clerks are concerned, as ordered supra, the Railway Administration could with the help of the willing staff proceed further and do the needful and that the entire process shall be completed as expeditiously as possible.
23. Going through the entire material on record, we do not find any infirmity or illegality warranting interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, the impugned common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai made in O.A.Nos.694 to 696 of 2016, dated 12.08.2016, is sustained.
http://www.judis.nic.in 23 In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed and the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 12.08.2016 made in O.A. Nos.694 to 696 of 2016 is confirmed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(S.M.K., J.) (N.A.N., J.)
18.01.2018
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
asr
To
The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal
Madras Bench, Chennai - 600 104.
http://www.judis.nic.in
24
S.MANIKUMAR, J.
AND
N.AUTHINATHAN, J.
asr
W.P.Nos.35449 to 35451 of 2016
and
W.M.P. Nos.30521 to 30523 of 2016
18.01.2018
http://www.judis.nic.in