Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur
Mahendra Singh vs M/O Railway on 25 March, 2019
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH
...
Original Application No.290/00341/2017
Date of order: 25.03.2019
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. HINA P.SHAH, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MS. ARCHANA NIGAM, MEMBER (A)
1. Mahendra Singh s/o Shri Munshi Ram, by caste
Kumhar, aged 32 years, resident of VPI Dhandela,
Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
2. Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Babu Lal, by caste Meghwal,
aged 32 years, resident of VPO Palsana, Tehsil
Dantaramgarh District Sikar.
3. Gurmeet Singh s/o Shri Dula Singh, by caste Rai Sikh
aged 32 years, resident of Ward No.13 VPO Dabli
Rathan, Tehsil & District Hanumangarh.
4. Jitendra Kumar s/o Shri Shivraj Singh, by caste Jatav,
aged 32 years, resident of Plot No.30, Anand Vihar
Colony, Hanumangarh.
5. Shree Ram Jakhar s/o Shri Jhabar Mal Jakhar, by caste
Jat, aged 26 years, resident of VPO Pujari Ka Bas,
Dulwana Tehsil Khandela District Sikar.
6. Rajesh Kumar Saini s/o Shri Bholu Ram Saini, by caste
Mali, aged 29 years, resident of VPO Dhoi Tehsil Sri
Madhopur District Sikar.
7. Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Sher Singh by caste Khati,
aged 28 years, resident of VPO Shyoratada, Tehsil
Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.
8. Kumar Singh S/o Nityanand Prasad, by caste Yadav,
aged 35 years, resident of VPO Madanpura, Tehsil
Enkgar Saray, District Nalanda (Bihar).
9. Rakesh Kumar Yadav s/o Shri Suwa Lal Yadav, by
caste Yadav, aged 26 years, resident of village Dhani
Bedawali, Post Jhadli, Tehsil Sri Madhopur District
Sikar.
2
10. Pratap Singh s/o Ajeet Singh by caste Sethwar, aged
24 years, resident of Village Matholi Bazar, Tehsil Hata
District Kushinagar (U.P.)
11. Vinod Kumar Swami s/o Shri Ratan Lal Swami, by
caste Swami, aged 25 years, resident of Village Churi,
Post Banethi, Tehsil Kotputli District Jaipur.
12. Bhanwar Lal Harijan S/o Shri Ganpat Ram, by caste
Meghwal, aged 30 years, resident of Village Sevad
Chhoti, Post Sevad Badi, Tehsil & District Sikar.
13. Prakash s/o Shri Shankar Lal by caste Kumhar, aged
32 years, resident of VPO Bhuranpura Tehsil Tibbi
District Hanumangarh.
14. Kuldeep Singh s/o Shri Gurdev Singh, by caste Majbi
Sikh, aged 30 years, resident of Village Morjanda
Tehsil Sangaria District Hanumangarh.
15. Mukesh Kumar Bairva s/o Shri Harlal Bairva by caste
Bairva aged 37 years resident of VPO Bandikui, Tehsil
Bandikui, District Dausa.
16. Lal Chand Sharma S/o Shri Chetan Ram, by caste
Brahmin, aged 35 years, resident of Villlge Karoti Post
Badbirana Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
17. Roop Ram s/o Shri Rampal, by caste Bairva aged 33
years, resident of VPO Nagla Harihar, Tehsil Bair
District Bharatpur.
18. Kishan Kumar s/o Shri Rameshwar Lal by caste Jat,
aged 31 years, resident of VPO Nathvaniya, Tehsil
Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
19. Rajesh Kumar Sah S/o Shri Fanilal Sah, by caste Teli,
aged 29 years, resident of BPO Chenpura Tehsil
Triveniganj District Supoula (Bihar).
20. Rajkumar s/o Shri Dashrath Lal, by caste Ahir, aged
29 years, resident of BPO Muradpur, Tehsil Chayal
District Koshambi (Bihar).
21. Suresh Kumar Yadav s/o Shri Prabhati Lal Yadav, by
caste Ahir, aged 39 years, resident of Village Shimali,
Post Bihar Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.
22. Ram Kumar s/o Shri Banwari Lal by caste Meghwal,
aged 28 years, resident of Village Jhunka Bas, Post
Bhagatpura Tehsil Dantaramgarh District Sikar.
23. Mahendra Pavanda S/o Shri Devaram Pavanda, by
caste Jat, aged 26 years, resident of Village Dhani
Pavanda Post Bhopatpura, Tehsil Sri Madhopur District
Sikar.
3
24. Rakesh Kumar Chahar s/o Shri Shree Chand Chahar,
by caste Jat, aged 31 years, resident of VPO Dhani
Guman Singh Tehsil Khandela District Sikar.
25. Ganga Kumari s/o Shri Inder Dev Singh, by caste Mali,
aged 27 years, resident of VPO Devadiya Tehsil
Rajpur, District Bakksar (Bihar)
26. Rakesh Kumar s/o Shri Kashi Ram, by caste Jat, aged
25 years, resident of VPO Derdash Tehsil Nohar,
District Hanumangarh.
27. Sultan Singh s/o Shri Bhagwan Sahay, by caste Jat,
aged 25 years, resident of Dhani Mundawali, Tehsil
Jetsar, District Sikar.
28. Ved Prakash s/o Shri Mahendra Singh Mahriya by
caste Jat, aged 25 years, resident of Village Ratusar,
Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
29. Vijay Singh s/o Shri Prabhudayal by caste Sunar, aged
27 years, resident of VPO Munsari, Tehsil Bhadra
District Hanumangarh.
30. Ramswaroop S/o Shri Phool Chand Katariya by caste
Jat, aged 30 years, resident of VPO Sanwali Hamirpura
Tehsil Laxmangarh District Sikar.
31. Daya Ram Phulwariya S/o Shri Puranmal, by caste
Regar, aged 28 years, Resident of Ward No.16 Jogi
Asan Sahava Road, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
32. Brijbihari Meena s/o Shri Mangi Lal Meena, by caste
Meena, aged 35 years, resident of BPO Lakhsamiya
Tehsil Digod District Kota.
33. Babu Lal Gurjar s/o Shri Kalu Ram Gurjar, by caste
Gurjar, aged 29 years resident of VPO Shree Rampura,
Post Fasiyawas Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur.
34. Mahendra Singh Fardoliya S/o Shri Sultan Singh, by
caste Jat, aged 26 years, resident of VPO Netarwas
Tehsil Thod District Sikar.
35. Suresh Kumar Yadav s/o Shri Leeladhar Yadav, by
caste Ahir, aged 25 years, resident of VPO Gudadiya
Jat, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur.
36. Hukma Ram s/o Jagdish Kumar Verma, by caste
Kumhar aged 39 years, resident of Quarter No.513,
Sector 12 Ward No.7, Hanumangarh Junction District
Hanumangarh.
37. Sugan Singh Meena s/o Shri Ramji Lal Meena, by caste
Meena, aged 35 years, resident of VPO Rajpura Bada,
Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar.
4
38. Mohd. Noushad Alam s/o Shri Inkalab Alam, by caste
Muslim aged 29 years, resident of VPO Singgor Tehsil
Paliganj District Patna (Bihar).
39. Yogesh Kumar S/o Shri Amrika Lal, by caste Meghwal,
aged 25 years, resident of Ward No.8, Railway Colony,
Piliganga District Hanumangarh.
40. Purshottam S/o Shri Lal Chand by caste Prajapat, aged
25 years, resident of Village Rampura Dhani Post
Roshava, Tehsil Fatehpur District Sikar.
41. Hemraj Sharma s/o Shri Shrawan Kumar Sharma by
caste Brahmin, aged 39 years, resident of Village
Dhandhusar Post Motent, Tehsil Rawatsar District
Hanumangarh.
42. Kalwant Kumar s/o Shri Amru Ram, by caste Jat, aged
27 years, resident of Ward No. 19, Near Dulwani
Jatan, Tehsil Pilibanga District Hanumangarh.
43. Bajrang Lal s/o Shri Kajod Mal by caste Jat, aged 29
years, resident of VPO Gothda Tagelan, Tehsil
Dantaramgarh, District Sikar.
44. Vinod Kumar s/o Shri Shyam Lal by caste Sansi, aged
25 years, resident of VPO Kharbara Tehsil
Chhattargarh, District Bikaner.
45. Dinesh Kumar Dhayal s/o Shri Kishna Ram, by caste
Jat, aged 29 years, resident of VPO Bajyawas, Tehsil
Dantaramgarh District Sikar.
46. Sonu s/o Shri Om Prakash by caste Meghwal aged 29
years resident of Ward No.2, Gali No.4, Nai Khunja
Hanumangarh Junction District Hanumangarh.
47. Tara Chand Sharma s/o Shri Damodar Prasad Sharma,
by caste Brahmin, aged 27 years, resident of VPO
Athbigha, Tehsil Khandela District Sikar.
48. Arvind Kumar s/o Shri Chheda Lal by caste Pasi, aged
30 years, resident of Ward No.44, Sureshiya Colony,
Hanumangarh Junction District Hanumangarh.
49. Mohal Lal yadav s/o Shri Jodha Ram, by caste Ahir,
aged 27 years, resident of VPO Rundal Tehsil Amer
District Jaipur.
50. Balveer Sheshma s/o Shri Gopi Ram Sheshma, by
caste Jat, aged 26 years, resident of village Sheshma
Ki Dhani, Post Bhima (Loshal) Tehsil Dantaramgarh
District Sikar.
51. Bolta Ram Meena s/o Shri Duli Ram Meena by caste
Meena, aged 33 years, resident of VPO Adalwada
Kallan, Tehsil and District Sawaimathopur.
5
(All are working as Trackmen under the respondent
No.2)
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri Binja Ram Jajra, proxy for Shri Rakesh
Matoria)
Versus
1. Union of India through the General Manager, North
Western Railway, Jaipur
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway,
Bikaner.
3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Western
Railway, Bikaner.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Girish Sankhla)
ORDER (ORAL)
In this OA filed u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants pray for the following reliefs:-
(i) That this joint application may kindly be allowed.
(ii) That the condition imposed in the notification Ann.A/1 dated 18.5.2016 of working the employee in Traffic and Commercial Department may be declared illegal by allowing all the employees possessing all the requisite qualification prescribed under the relevant rules/circulars working in the lower post or at least Engineering Department may be added.
(iii) That the applicants may be declared eligible for promotion on the post of Ticket Inspector through LDCE quota pursuant to Annex. A/1 dated 18.05.2016 and be allowed to participate in the selection process and on having been declared successful they may be promoted.
(iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems just and proper in favour of the applicant may be passed.
2. Brief facts, as stated by the applicants, are that the respondents invited application vide notification dated 18.5.2016 for filling up the promotional post of Ticket 6 Inspector (Ticket Examiner) in the Pay Band of Rs. 5200- 20200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/-. In the selection process, the applicants were not permitted to participate as they were from Engineering Department of the Railways. The applicants aver that the post of Ticket Inspector is carrying the Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- per month and as per recruitment rules 33.33% posts are to be filled up from the employees working in the Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). As per provisions of Para 189 of the IREM Vol.I as well as Railway board Circular No. 165/2003 dated 22.9.2003 and 157/2015 dated 15.12.2015, the applicants are eligible as per the criteria prescribed. The applicants are working in the Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- in Engineering Department and on earlier occasions the employees of all the department/sections including Engineering were allowed to participate in the promotional examination, but this time they have restricted only to the extent of employees of Traffic and Commercial Department. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents by not allowing the applicants to participate in the promotional examination, a legal notice through their advocate was sent on 20.4.2017 but their grievance was not redressed and as the last date of 7 submitting the application pursuant to Ann.A/1 was approaching on 15.6.2016, the applicants have approached this Tribunal seeking a direction that they may be declared eligible for promotion on the post of Ticket Inspector through LDCE quota and that they may be allowed to participate in the selection process and having been declared successful they should be promoted.
3. The respondents have filed their reply on 17.4.2018. The respondents state that the applicants since belong to the Engineering Department are not eligible as per Rule 180 and 181 of the IREM Vol.I (Revised Edition 1989). As per Para 181, Trackmen category has the AVC for promotion as Keymen and Mates. Para 181 which is regarding the department of Civil Engineering, provides that Trolley Men, Gate Men and Chowkidars should be grouped with Gangmen and be eligible for promotion as Key Men and Mates. These persons are required to render a minimum of three years service as Gangmen, but it is not necessary that they should work as Gangmen in rotation. Gangmen who are disabled and cannot work as Gangmen will, of course, not be eligible for promotion. Para 180 provides that all railway servants in the lowest grade should be eligible for consideration for promotion to higher grade in 8 both the Transportation and Commercial branches and applications should be invited from amongst categories eligible for promotion from both the categories. The employees who apply will be considered from the said branches. Accordingly, adhoc seniority list will be prepared on the basis of length of continuous service in the grade and suitable men will be selected and placed on a panel for training. The respondents have also issued a clarification dated 26.7.2011 (Ann.R/1) whereby promotional posts as Ticket Examiner shall be filled up from the employees of Transportation and Commercial departments. Further as per Railway Board circular dated 19.2.2013, the matter has been considered by the Ministry of Railways in the light of the provisions contained in para 181 to 189 of IREM Vol.I. Hence, it is very much clear that the employees of the Transportation and Commercial department are only eligible for the purpose of promotion on the post of Ticket Examiner whereas the present applicants are employees of the Engineering Department, who cannot be permitted to the post of Ticket Examiner beyond the provisions of Rules. Therefore, the OA is devoid of merit.
4. Heard Shri Binja Ram Jajra proxy for Mr. Rakesh Matoria, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Girish 9 Sankhla, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record.
5. The applicants reiterated their stand made earlier and stated that though they are working in the Engineering Department, but they should be allowed to participate in the selection process for the post of Ticket Examiner through LDCE pursuant to Ann.A/1 dated 18.5.2015.
6. The respondents on the other hand, stated that the controversy involved in the present matter has already been decided by this Tribunal in OA No.62/2017 - Lala Ram & Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. vide order dated 10th March, 2017.
7. Considered the rival contentions of the parties.
8. On going through the order dated 10th March, 2017 passed in OA No.62/2017, it reveals that this Tribunal has gone in detail with regard to the recruitment rules for promotion to the post of Ticket Collector/Examiner and in Para 7 and 8 observed as under:-
"7. The principal argument advanced on behalf of the applicant is that the office order dated 09.01.2017 said to have been based on RBE No. 165/2003 and para 189 of IREM Vol. I, does not restrict the eligible candidates of other departments to participate in LDCE for promotion to the post of Ticket Examiner in Commercial & Traffic Department of North-Western Railway. Whereas, the respondents state that each department in the Railway has different avenues of promotion. Para 189 of IREM 10 read with para 2 of RBE No. 165/2003 clearly prescribes that the Group C categories have to be suitably linked with specified Group D categories on the basis of broad affinity of work, which is not so in case of the applicants. In the AVC of Ticket Examiner, the eligible categories of Group D employees for LDCE has been specified by the North Western Railway as all group D eligible staff of Traffic & Commercial Department and eligible Group C staff, in the AVC of Ticket Examiner.
8. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. The para 189 (i) of Sub-Section-IV (II) of chapter Recruitment of Group D Railway Servants lays down the following method for promotion to higher grades in Group C:
'189. Promotion to higher grades in Group-C: (a) Railway servants in Group-D categories for whom no regular avenue of promotion exists, 33-1/3% of the posts in the lowest grade of Commercial Clerks, Ticket Collectors, Train Clerks, Office Clerks, Stores Clerksetc., should be earmarked for promotion. The quota for promotion of Group-D staff in the Accounts Deptt and Group-C post of Accounts Clerks will be 25%. Promotion to Group-C will be subject to the following conditions: (i) All promotions should be made on the basis of selection. There should be written tests to assess the educational attainments of candidates. Group -C categories referred to above should be suitably linked with specified categories in the lower grades on broad affinity of work to form groups for promotion but it should be ensured that the prospects are made equal in the different groups. The test should be co- related to the standards of proficiency that can reasonably be expected from railway servants who are generally non- matriculates. The aim of the examiners should be to assess the general suitability of the Group-D railway servants offering themselves for promotion to Group-C posts from the point of view of their knowledge of English and their general standard of intelligence. The factors of selection and their relative weight will be as indicated below:
Xxxxxxxxxxxxx The Recruitment Rules for promotion to the post of Ticket Collector/Examiner from eligible Group Dcategories reads as under :
(ii) 33-1/3 % by promotion by a process of selection from eligible Group D categories of staff as specified by the Zonal Railways as per procedure prescribed in para 189;
and
(iii) 16-2/3 % by promotion entirely on merit of Matriculate Group D employees from eligible categories, 11 as specified by the Zonal Railways for (ii) above, with a minimum of 2 years regular service in the concerned seniority unit on the basis of a competitive examination consisting of Written Test and Record of Service of 85and 15 marks respectively.
The respondents have placed on record the avenues of promotion in the Commercial Department and Civil Engineering Department (P.Way). The Group D employees of Civil Engineering Department (P.Way) have LDCE quota in their promotional avenues. It is not the case of the applicants that they do not have any promotional avenues Para (a) of IREM 189 quoted above, stipulates that Railway servants in Group-D categories, for whom no regular avenue of promotion exists, the posts should be earmarked. Further, para 189(a) (i), stipulates that Group -C categories referred to above should be suitably linked with specified categories in the lower grades on broad affinity of work to form groups for promotion as has been reiterated in para 2 of RBE No. 165/03. The para 2 of RBE No. 165/03 reads as under :
"2. In terms of instructions contained in para 189 of IREM, Vol. I, 1989, 33 1/3% quota of posts in the lowest grade of Commercial Clerks, Ticket Collectors, Trains Clerks, Office Clerks and other categories of Clerks like Stores Clerks, etc. are to be earmarked for promotion of Railway servants in Group 'D' categories for whom no regular, avenue of promotion exists; the Group 'C' categories being suitably linked with specified Group 'D' categories on the basis of broad affinity of work. Further, in terms of Board's letter No.E(NG)I/96/CFP/27 dated 10.10.2000 (RBE 176/2000), 162/3% of the posts in these categories are also filled by promotion of Matriculate Group 'D' employees with a minimum of two years service in the concerned seniority unit entirely on merit on the basis of a competitive examination. However, in the case of Accounts Deptt., the quota for promotion of Group 'D' staff to Group 'C' post of Accounts Clerks continues to be 25% ofthe posts."
The Recruitment Rules of Ticket Collector/Examiner provide for filling up of 16-2/3 % vacancies by promotion entirely on merit of Matriculate Group D employees from eligible categories, as specified by the Zonal Railways from Group D categories, with a minimum of 2 years regular service in the concerned seniority unit on the basis of a competitive examination. Vide the General Manager, NWR letter No.655/ET/1/TNC/AVC dated 26.07.2011 (mentioned in Annex. R/1), the Group C category of Commercial Department of NWR has been linked with the specified categories in the lower grades of that department on broad affinity of work to form groups for promotion. There is consistency in all these orders. The foundation of issuance of impugned office order is based on para 189 of IREM, subsequent amendments from time to time, 12 as well as, on recruitment rules. We, therefore, find no infirmity on these counts. On a conjoint reading of the documents placed on record by the applicants, as well as, facts mentioned by the respondents in their reply, we feel that the applicants have assailed the validity of office order dated 09.01.2017,p out of context. The applicants have promotional avenues available in their own Department and have their own concerned seniority unit. Therefore, we find no reason, whatsoever, to grant any relief.
In view of the above, it is clear that the present OA is squarely covered by the judgment dated 10th March, 2017 passed in OA No.62/2017 wherein this Tribunal has already considered the matter in detail on the similar issue which is involved in the present OA. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the action of the respondents.
9. The OA is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(ARCHANA NIGAM) (HINA P.SHAH)
ADMV. MEMBER JUDL. MEMBER
R/
13