Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
K Pasupathy vs M/O Railways on 24 March, 2023
fe 1 O.A,1279/2015 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAT BENCH OA No. 1279/2015 Dated 2-4 day thef-y} day of March Two Thousand Twenty Three CORUM: HON'BLE MR. T.JACOB, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER & HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER K.Pasupathy, No.7, Carmel Garden, Ramalinga Nagar, Trichy-620 003 By Advocate M/S.R.Pandian Vs. i Union of India represented by The Secretary, Ministry of Railways Railway Board, Rail Bhavan New Dethi 2 The General Manager, Southern Railway Park Town, Chennai-600 003 3 The Chief Personne! Officer, Southern Railways Park Town, Chennal-600 003 4 The Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railways DRM Office , Tiruchirapalli-620 001 By Advocate Mr.P.Srinivasan . Applicant .. Respondents 2 0.4.1279/2015 ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member{J)) The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking for the following reliefs:
"ty To call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order No.T.P.612/III/CC/Vol. IV dated 27.04.2015 (Annexure A-5) and to set aside the same
ii) To restore the seniority list. published vide letter No.7612/II /CC/ Vol.IV dated 01.03.2011 (Annexure A-1)."
2, 'The brief facts of the case In nutshell are as under:
The applicant is working as Senior Commercial Clerk in Tiruchirapalli Division of Southern Railway. He was promoted as Chief Commercial Clerk as Commercial Apprentice in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 (V CPC scale) Rs.9300-34800 with Grady Pay of Rs.4200 under LDCE Quota Selection on 17.09.2009. The applicant contended that the Respondents published the seniority list of Chief Commercial Clerk on 1.3.2014 duly fixing the applicant's seniority with erstwhile employees of Rs.5500-9000 scale. In the meantime, the Respondent No. 4, informed the applicant that his seniority has to be revised and asked him to submit appeal/representation vide letter dt.10.2.2014. Accordingly, the applicant had submitted his appeal on 24.2,2014. As the respondent was not disposing the above appeal, he has approached this Hon'bie Tribunal in OA No.264/2015, As per the directions of this Tribunal in the said OA, vide order dated 25.02.2015, the Respondent had disposed the Representation vide letter dt.27.04.2015, Aggrieved by the said letter, the applicant had approached this Hon'ble Tribunal praying for the aforesaid relief.
3 After notice, the respondents have entered their appearance through their counsel and filed a detailed reply and raised the objection over the 3 O.A.1279/2015 plea and ground raised by the applicant in the present OA on the ground that the criteria for determination of seniority should be the date of regular promotion after due process in the case of promotee, and the date of joining working post afte due process in the case of direct recruit, subject to. maintenance of inter-se seniority of promotees and direct recruits among themselves. However, the applicant claims the said senority from the date of joining the training rather the date of regular promotion. Moreover the applicant has not challenged the seniority list dt.1.4.2015 wherein the applicant has been placed in the seniority list taking into consideration of his date of regular promotion i.e. 10.8.2008.
In the present case the applicant was selected for the post of Chief Commercial Clerk in the scale of Rs.5500-9000 (V CPC) under LDCE quota though an act of selection before the implementation of VI CPC (1.6.1.9,2008). Respondents also contended that as per the provisions contained in Para 180. of IREM, Vol.I systematic and adequate training and examinations or test must. proceed actual promotions. In terms of the above, the applicant was subjected to prescribed training for the post of Commercial Apprentice from 18.7.2007 to 17.7.2009. The applicant took independent duty on 10.8.2009. Since the seniority of the applicant, being fixed erroneously In the seniority list published dated 1.3.2011 taking into account his date of joining the training rather than the date of regular promotion, the applicant was issued show cause notice dated 10.2.2014. Therefore, the seniority list published on 1.3.2011 has been revised after issuing show cause notice and accordingly, the applicant was placed in the said seniority list dt.1.4.2015 at SI.No.78. Therefore, the respondents contended that there is no merit in the OA and prayed for the dismissal as devoid of merit.
4 Heard M/S. R.Pandian for the applicant and Mr..P.Srinivasan for 4 Q.A.1279/2015 Respondents and perused the relevant records. To deal into the issue, it is necessary to follow with the rule position for Promotion to Higher Grades in Group D and Group C Posts.
180. Transportation(Traffic) and Commercial Deptt: All railway servants in the lowest grade should be eligible for consideration for promotion te higher grades | both the Transportation and Coramercial branches. Applications should be invite fram amongst categories eligible for promotion fram both the branches. All Railway servants who apply will be considered in adhoc seniority list will be prepared on the basis of continuous service in the grade and suitable men selected and placed on a panel of training. Systematic: and-adequate training and examinations or tests: must precede actual promotions.
5 In support of their claim, the Respondents relied upon the order of Hon''ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Union of India (UOT) and anr vs. Afroz Ahmed and Ors (007 (1)SLJ 455) Delhi; and the order dt.18.5.2015 by Coordinate Bench at Ernakulam of this Hon'ble Tribunal In OA no.631/2014 and other connected matters.
6 To clarify the said position in respect of the seniority, the Railway Board by Circular dated 26.9.2012 issued guidelines relating to the status of promotions made between the date of effect and date of implementation of recommendation of VI CPC and determination of seniority of staff in the merged grades. Relevant portion of the decision of the Railway Board is extracted below:
il} The promotions made between 1.1.2006 to 4.9.2008 (date af Implementation of 6 CPC on Railways) will be protected as the same were made as per the provisions of statutory rules exiting at that time, The merger of the pay scale (s) of the post (s) as recommended by 6" CPC have been made effective wef1.1.2006 , the seniority of government servant which existed on 4.9.2008 will be maintained |.e the holder of post for the post in the feeder grade, will rank enblock senior to those holding post having lower pay scale or the posts in feeder cadre, (if) Whether posts having different pay scales prior to 6" CPC recommendations and now after merger have come to fie in the same Pay Band with same Grade Pay, the inter-se seniority of all the employees will be fully maintained with employee in a higher pre-revised pay scale being 3 0.4.1279/2015 placed higher vis-a-vis an employee in a lower revised pay scale, Within the same. pre-revised pay scale, seniority which existed prior to revision would continue.
{ifi) Where recruitment for the post in different pre-revisad pay scale{s} was initiated separately for each posts, prior ta acceptance of recommendation of 6" CPC, |.e prior to 4.9.2008 but selected individual joined duty on or after 5.9.2008 in the revised pay scale (s} against the post which have been granted same Grade Pay, such staff will be assigned seniority enbloc below those who were In position as on 4.9.2008."
7 According to the Respondents, since the applicant has been taken independent duty on 10.8.2009, he falls within the purview of above quoted provisions of Railway Board circular dt.26.9,2012. Therefore, the period of training undergone by the applicant carinot be treated for the purpose of preparation of seniority. 8 It is also argued that seniority is not the vested right on the part of the applicant and in this regard, the respondents have relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court Delhi in the matter of Union of India and Anr. vs. Afroz Anmed and Ors by its order dt.7.3.2006 held thus:
"Dessous In case the training period of a direct recruit as curtailed in the exigencies of service, the date of joining the working post in case of such a direct recruit shail be the date he would have normally come to a working post after completion of the prescribed period of training.
10 'The said provision provides that seniority amongst incumbents of a post in @ grade was/is determined by the date of appointment in that grade. In case, where appointment was/is partially by promotion and partially by direct recruitment, inter se seniority in case of promotees shall be date of regular promotion after due process and in case of direct recruit seniority inter se depends upon the date of joining the work after due process. Not to Para 302 states that. in case training period of a direct recruit was/is curtailed due to exigencies of service, the date of joining the working post by a direct recruit would neverthless be the date on which the direct recruit would have / had joined the working post after completion of prescribed period of training.
Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court held that training period of 24 months 6 0.A.1279/2015 is not to be counted for the purpose of seniority and the ACP Scheme. The seniority of the employee will be counted from the date they successfully completed their training.
9 It is also to be noted that as observed by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal at Ernakulam in OA No.631/2014 in the matter of Sri.Viju.C and another vs. the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway in its order dated 18.5.2015 relied upon various orders produced by both the counsels and also considering the Railway Board Circular dt.26.9.2012, read thus:
"17. MrSunil Jacob Jose argued that seniority is not a vested right on the part of the applicants. In this connection, he referred to the Apex Court decision in T.Narasimhal's case (supra). Referring to S.P.Shiv Prasad Pipal's case (supra), he submitted that merger of different cadres and the rules of inter se seniority tantamounts to a matter of policy and the Courts cannot interfere in such policies. Referring to Annexure A-8 order of this Hon'ble Tribunal and the subsequent decision of the High Court when Annexure A& was challenged, he pointed out that the High Court had observed as under:
conerseases It is beyond the pale of any doubt that an integrated list of SM-il and SM-Ill can be generate only after finatising the seniority position in SM-tl and SM-II cadres .....(See Annexure R2}"
19. In the above circumstances and in the light of the extant administrative instructions relating to the fixing of séniority of the employees on the merger of two grades, we are of the view that since the applicants, after their post selection training, have actually joined the past only after the prescribed cut off date, they cannot claim seniority above those who were already in the merged grade as on the cut off date. We are unable to see any ittegality in Annexure A/13 administrative instructions which in fact is a manifestation of the policy of the Railway Administration, Therefore,we hold that there is no merit in the claim of the applicant in this OA"
10. It is to be noted that though in the year 2011 in the seniority list, the applicant's seniority has been fixed from the date of training. and he has been piaced at Sl. No.61, however, after the said clarificatory circular issued in the year 2012, the respondents have issued the show cause 7 O.A.1279/2015 notice in the year 2014 and after considering the reply of the applicant, they have revised the said seniority list in the year 2015. Accordingly, the applicant has been placed at SI. No.78 by counting his date of taking the charge on the said post i.e. after completion of two years of training. The Respondents have replied to the request of the applicant by considering the rule position.
ii. In view of the same, we are of the considered opinion the action of the respondents does not call for our interference as we are unable to see any illegality, the said revised seniority is. published according to the policy of the Railway Administration. Therefore, we hold that there is no merit in the 0.A. The OA Is dismissed with no order.asto cost. .
3 tt wt