Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Pushp Kumara vs Western Railway on 24 January, 2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH, AHMEDABAD.
OA No.457/2021 with MA No.452/2021
This the 24th day of January, 2022.
Coram : Hon'ble Shri Jayesh V.Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. A.K.Dubey, Member (A)
1. Pushp Kumar
S/o. Parshuram Kanojiya
Aged : 38 years, Caste-SC
Working as Station Superintendent,
West Port, Western Railway,
Ahmedabad Division
Residing at : Room No.6, Sawla Apartment,
Kailash Park, Baroi Road,
Mundra - 370 421.
2. Manoj Kumar
S/o. Ramayan Prasad
Aged : 41 years (OBC)
Station Master Bhadreshwar
Road, Western Railway,
Ahmedabad Division
Residing at Bhadreshwar Road Railway Station
Quarter No.17, Post : Luni, Taluka : Mundra
District : Kutch, Gujarat - 370 410........................ Applicants
(By Advocate : Shri K.K.Shah)
Versus
1. Union of India
Notice to be served through
The General Manager
Office of General Manager
Head Quarter, Western Railway,
Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager (E)/
Senior Divisional Personnel Officer
Divisional Office, Western Railway
Ahmedabad Division, Nr. Chamunda Bridge
Ahmedabad - 382 345.
3. Senior Divisional Operating Manager
(Sr.DOM), Divisional Office, Western Railway
Ahmedabad Division, Nr. Chamunda Bridge
Ahmedabad - 382 345.
4. Divisional Railway Manager
Divisional Office, North East Railway
Varansi (Uttar Pradesh) -221 002. ................. Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri A.L.Sharma)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Per : Hon'ble Shri A.K. Dubey, Member (A)
1. Considering the grounds stated in the MA No. 452/2021 for Joint Application, the same is allowed.
2. The applicants have approached this Tribunal impugning the order of the respondents dated 13.10.2021 (Annexure A/1) in para 8 of which it was conveyed that as and when the staff strength in SM category would improve, the cases of transfer of these two applicants would be reviewed and action taken accordingly based on the condition prevailing at that time.
3. The applicants have also sought direction to get relieved as early as possible because latest NOC by the recipient Railway Division dated 02.08.2021 (Annexure A/20) is valid till 01.02.2021. Counsel for the applicant argues that this is against the provision of RBE No.85/2020 dated 01.10.2020 (Annexure A/18)(Colly.). This RBE provides that NOC issued by the receiving Railway should be valid for a period of six months, and if transfer of the employees is not effected within this period, NOC in such case should be mandatorily revalidated. The employees should be relieved on transfer only after re-confirming the validity of the NOC. Counsel for the applicant further refers to the RBE No.170/2005 dated 06.10.2005 regarding Inter Zonal request Transfer on bottom seniority. It clearly says in its para-2 that since requests by the Railway servants for transfer on bottom seniority are made on grounds of special cases of hardship, it has been decided that requests for inter zonal transfer may not be withheld on account of existence of vacancies. If, however, request for transfer are withheld in the exigency of service on account of existence of vacancies, a time bound programme should be chalked out to fill up the vacancies by direct recruitment or promotion, as case may be. He further refers to RBE No.203/2019 dated 26.11.2019 which had quoted the order of Chennai Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.751/2019 and similar other OAs which essentially called upon the respondents to consider the issue raised in the OA concerned as a policy issue and take appropriate decision within the period of six months on the issue of relieving employees transferred on inter zonal request basis. As per this order, every effort should be made to relieve such transferred employees at an early date. The applicants have placed on record their request to the respondents dated 20.01.2021 (Annexure A/24) requesting to transfer them at the earliest since they had been waiting for inter zonal transfer for the last 10 years. Further, the applicants refer to the order of the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal dated 09.04.2021 in OA No.106/2021 that if such transferees are not relieved immediately, they would lose their seniority because the Inter Zonal Transfer is on bottom seniority basis and inordinate delay in relieving on such transfer would be tantamount of the loss of seniority.
4. Counsel for the respondents had submitted the reply to the OA. He mainly argued that there was a shortage of staff and in exigencies of administration, it was difficult to relieve transferees at this stage. The request for transfer on inter zonal based was of course accepted in the year 2017 and priority number assigned to the applicant is 129 (Annexure A/5). He argued that their relieving could not be irrespective of administrative exigency. He also submitted that the second time NOC was asked only by way of confirmation in accordance with the provisions of RBE No.85/2020, according to which, the employees are to be relieved only after reconfirming the validity of NOC. Of course, records do confirm that the NOC was revalidated as communicated vide letter dated 02.08.2021 (Annexure A/20). The counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the matter was processed and the applicants could not be relieved only because of the administrative exigency arising from large number of vacancies.
5. Heard, the counsel for both the parties at length.
6. A few things in this mater are very clear that there is a provision for inter zonal railway transfer on own request for which there is prescribed procedure. That procedure has been completed in this case. The NOC was obtained, but the applicants were not relieved for the first instance. Upon their request, NOC was asked for yet again while communication of the respondents dated 12th April, 2021 (Annexure A/19). The revalidated NOC was duly received vide letter dated 02.08.2021 (Annexure A-20), confirming that the recipient railway did not have any problem in receiving the two transferees. It is only matter of their relieving. The argument of the respondents' counsel that there was deficit staff strength and lot of vacancies were there, does not hold good because at the time of ascertaining NOC afresh, situation was very much alike and yet fresh NOC was asked for. There are instructions vide RBE No.170/2005 dated 06.10.2005 and RBE No.203/2019 dated 26.11.2019 that relieving should not be delayed and if immediate relieving was not possible, fresh NOC was to be obtained and in the meanwhile, steps were to be taken to fill up the vacancy. This is an old case and in the first round of request, the applicants could not succeed in getting relieved. At this belated stage, the grounds of existence of vacancies may not hold good. Relying on RBE No.170/2005 dated 16.10.2005 as well as RBE No.203/2019 dated 26.11.2019, we think it is fit case to direct the respondents to honour their own rules and provisions and take further steps to relieve the applicants pursuant to NOC issued vide letter dated 02.08.2021 which is valid till 01.2.2022. The respondents, therefore, shall take steps to relieve the applicants within the period of validity of NOC.
7. With this direction, the OA is allowed. No order as to costs.
(A.K.Dubey) (J.V.Bhairavia)
Member (A) Member (J)
nk
6-
OA/457/2021
CAT, Ahmedabad Bench