Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ram Chandra-Iii vs Union Of India Through The General ... on 21 March, 2013
RESERVED ON 19.02.2013 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD (THIS THE 21st DAY OF March 2013) PRESENT: HONBLE MS. JAYATI CHANDRA, MEMBER-A HONBLE MS JASMINE AHMED, MEMBER -J ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 762OF 2010 (U/s, 19 Administrative Tribunal Act.1985) 1. Ram Chandra-III, son of Late Munna Lal, E/Loco Pilot, Under Sr. Chief Controller, Kanpur, R/o P No. 32-A, New Azad Nagar, Satwar Road, Kanpur. 2. V.K. Sharma, S/o Janki Prasad, E/o Loco Pilot, Under Sr. Chief Controller, Kanpur, R/o 230/5, Juhi Lal Colony, Kanpur. 3. Mohd. Yameen S/o Late Mohd. Yaseen, E/Loco Pilot, Under Sr. Chief Controller, Kanpur R/o 133/181-82, T.P. Nagar Canal Road, Kanpur. 4. D.N. Pandey S/o Late R.P. Pandey, E/Loco Pilot, Under Sr. Chief Controller, Kanpur, R/o 33, Gopal Nagar, Kanpur. 5. Muneshwar Prasad S/o Ram Deen, E/Loco Pilot, Under Sr. Chief Controller, Kanpur, R/o 94/4, New Labour Colony, Babu Purwa, Kanpur. 6. Bhairo Prasad S/o Parasa Nath, E/Loco Pilot, Under Sr. Chief Controller, Kanpur, R/o 102, Ram Puram, Shyam Nagar, Kanpur. 7. R.P. Mishra S/o R.B. Mishra, E/Loco Pilot, Under Sr. Chief Controller, Kanpur, R/o Bungalow No.13, ABC Loco North Colony, Kanpur. 8. Phool Chandra III S/o Late Himanchal, E/Loco Pilot, Under Sr. Chief Controller, Kanpur, R/o 83/129, Chhoti Juhi, Kanpur. 9. Raja Ram S/o Sompat, E/Loco Pilot, Under Sr. Chief Controller, Kanpur, R/o 353E, Diggi Colony, Old Station, Kanpur. 10. Keshava Nath S/o Late Pooran Chandra, E/Loco Pilot, Under Sr. Chief Controller, Kanpur, R/o 101 A Block Shyam Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. 11. Amaresh Kumar S/o Late V.D. Prasad, E/Loco Pilot, Under Sr. Chief Controller, Kanpur R/o T/15-A, Railway Quarter, Coperganj, Kanpur. 12. Ram Prasad III S/o Shitla Prasad, E/Loco Pilot, Under Sr. Chief Controller, Kanpur, R/o 634/B, Railway Colony, Govind Nagar, Kanpur. 13. Ahmadullah S/o Late Mohd. Yusuf, E/Loco Pilot, Under Sr. Chief Controller, Kanpur R/o 131/307, Begum Purwa, Kanpur. 14. Satish Chandra Srivastava, S/o Late Indra Bahadur Lal, E/Loco Pilot, Under Sr. Chief Controller, Kanpur, R/o 489/A, Railway Janmashtami Colony, G.R. Road, Kanpur. 15. Ram Asrey-II, S/o Tulsi, E/Loco Pilot, under Sr. Chief Controller, Kanpur R/o Vill. Rampur Moon, P.O. Hath Gaon (Rajpur Muwery), Fatehpur. 16. Brijendra Kumar Sharma, S/o Pyarey Lal Sharma, E/Loco Pilot, Under Sr. Chief Controller, Kanpur, R/o 22/5, Babu Purwar Colony, Kanpur. 17. Shanker Lal S/o Dhooni, E/Loco Pilot, Under Sr. Chief Controller, Kanpur, R/o 45 O Block, Yashoda Nagar, Kanpur. . . . . . . . .Applicant By Advocate: Shri R. Verma Versus 1. Union of India through the General Manager, North Central Railway, Subedarganj, Allahabad. 2. General Manager, North Central Railway, Subedarganj, Allahabad. 3. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad. . . . . . . . . . Respondents By Advocate : Shri R.K. Srivastava O R D E R
DELIVERED BY HONBLE MS. JAYATI CHANDRA, MEMBER-A By means of present O.A. filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the applicants seek following relief(s):-
(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 01.02.2010 passed by the respondent No.2, as communicated by the Divisional Personnel Officer, North Central Railway, Allahabad vide its letter dated 17.02.2010 to the petitioners rejecting their claim of appointment of their wards under the Scheme as formulated by the Railway Board vide its letter dated 02.01.2004 (Annexure A-1).
(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the candidature of the wards of the petitioners for appointment in the lowest recruitment grade of Electric Drivers whereupon the petitioners are working and to retire the petitioners under the SAFETY RELATED RETIREMENT SCHEME (Drivers and Gangman) dated 02.01.2004 issued by the Railway Board, within the period as may be fixed by this Honble Tribunal.
(iii) ................
(iv) ...............
2. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioners are working as Electric Loco Pilots in North Central Railway and are currently posted at Kanpur except applicant No.15, who is posted at Fatehpur. The Railway Board has issued a Scheme for SAFETY RELATED RETIREMENT SCHEME vide notification No. E(P&E)-1.2001(RT-2 (KW) dated 02.01.2004. The Scheme has been introduced for only the categories of Gangman and Drivers (excluding Shunters who also come under Driver category) in the age Group of 55 to 57, who have completed 33 years of service. The wards of such employees will be considered for employment in the lowest recruitment grade of respective category from which the retirement is sought. However, they must possess all the eligibility conditions as are prescribed for Direct Recruitment from the open market.
3. The applicants in the O.A submitted their applications on the prescribed proforma seeking retirement for themselves and appointment of their wards in the lowest category (Annexure A-5). All the wards have completed their B.A./Intermediate/High School examination and are, therefore, eligible variously for being appointed as Electric Assistants or Electric Cleaner/Khalasi, which is lowest post in the hierarchy of the department where the applicants are working. As the applications were pending before the respondent No.2, the petitioners filed O.A. NO. 1050 of 2009, which was disposed of by this Tribunal at the admission stage by order dated 18.09.2009 (Annexure A-6) directing Respondent No.2 to consider the applications and pass a reasoned and speaking order within 3 months taking full cognizance of the order dated 04.05.2009 (Annexure A-9) passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. NO. 2176 of 2008. In compliance, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 01.02.2010 as communicated by letter dated 17.02.2010 by which the Divisional Personnel Officer, North Central Railway, Allahabad has rejected the claim of the applicants on the grounds that the ward of the applicants do not fulfill the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot, which is the lowest post in the category to which the applicants belong.
4. Admittedly, as per Railway Board letter No. E (NG)II/2000/RR-1/47 dated 03.08.2001, the minimum qualification for Assistant Loco Pilots is matriculation plus ITI in specified trades. However the applicants have claimed that the lowest post available in the Department is that of Electric Cleaner/Khalasi for which the qualification is matriculation. They have further stated in para 4.12 of the O.A. that the lowest recruitment grade of the category in which the applicants are aspiring is 1st Fireman for which the educational qualification is matriculation or its equivalent (para 136 IREM Vol.1 and Circular dated 03.08.2001 (Annexures A-8 and 9). Although the post of 1st Fireman is to be filled up 100% through promotion from Fireman -II. In case of shortfall, there is provision for Direct Recruitment from the open market.
5. The respondents have denied the claim of the applicant by filing counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit. The respondents have stressed that the Scheme provides for appointment of the wards in the 1st post for direct entry in the same category to which the persons seeking retirement belong. In this case, all the applicants belong to the category of Drivers and the lowest post available to be filled up under direct recruitment is that of Assistant Loco Pilot for which the requirement are:-
Matriculation plus ITI in specified trades i.e. Fitter, Electrician, Instrument Mechanic, Mill Wright/Maintenance Mechanic, Mechanic (TV/Radio), Electronic Mechanic, Mechanic (Motor Vehicle), Wireman, Tractor Mechanic, Armature & Coil Winder, Mechanic Diesel, Head Engine or Act Apprenticeship or Diploma in specified Trades.
6. O.A. NO. 1050/09 filed before this Tribunal was disposed of with a simple direction to decide the pending representation. O.A. NO. 2176/08 filed before the Principal Bench was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the wands on the post of Electric Khalasi/Electric Loco Cleaner. The respondents have filed a copy of the order dated 12.08.2009, which has been passed in compliance of directions given in O.A. NO. 2176/08. Once again this order has held that lowest post in the category of Driver is Assistant Loco Pilot for which the requisite eligibility criteria are High School plus ITI Diploma in respective trades. The respondents have contended that the applicants belong to the Driver category, which is a Group C post in the running cadre. The post of Assistant Loco Pilot/Electric Assistant in the running cadre is the lowest post in the category. The post of Electrical Cleaner/Khalasi is a Group D post and also comes under non-running cadre. In terms of the Scheme the wards of persons desirous of taking voluntary retirement may be considered for appointment in the lowest post of the category to which they belong. They have filed copy of R.R. Rules of various category as Annexure R-2.
7. Rejoinder Affidavit to counter affidavit and Supplementary counter affidavit have also been filed.
8. We have counsel for the parties and perused the records. The controversy in this case is very narrow and that is determining what is the lowest post, which is open to the ward of the applicants. It is not denied by the applicant that all the applicants are working as Assistant Electric Loco Pilot, which comes under the category of Driver. The Safety Related Retirement Scheme as enshrined in Boards letter No.E(P&A)/i-2001/RT-2 (KW) dated 2.1.2004 specifically says that this scheme is introduced only for Drivers and Gangman. The perusal of body of Scheme reveals that:
2. The main features of the Scheme are as follows:-
(i) The Scheme may be called Safety Related Retirement Scheme. The Scheme will cover two safety categories viz., Drivers (excluding shunters) and Gangman whose working has a critical bearing on safety of train operations and track maintenance. The Scheme has been framed on the consideration that with advancing age, the physical fitness and reflexes of staff of these categories deteriorate, thereby causing a safety hazard.
Drivers:- this category is directly responsible for the running of trains. Running duties demand continued attention and alertness. The element of stress combined with uncertain hours of work entailed in the performance of running duties over long periods of time lend to have a deleterious psychosomatic effect on their health. There is a slowing down of reflexes with the passage of time making them vulnerable to operational lapses.
Gangman:...............
(ii)..........................
(iii)........................
(iv).........................
(v)..........................
(vi) The ward will be considered for appointment only in the lowest recruitment grade of the respective category from which the employee seeks retirement, depending upon his/her eligibility and suitability, but not in any other category.
(vii)..........................
(viii).........................
(ix)..........................
(x)...........................
(xi)..........................
(xii) The conditions of eligibility, in the case of wards, being considered for appointment would be the same as prescribed for direct recruitment from the open market.
(xiii) Suitability of the wards will be assessed in the same manner as is being done in the case of direct recruitment. The assessment will be done through respective Railway Recruitment Boards. The request of the employee for retirement under this Scheme would be considered only if the ward is considered suitable for appointment in all respects, including medical fitness.
9. The applicants have not been consistent in staking their claims on a particular post as being consistent with the Scheme. Before the Principal Bench in O.A. NO. 2176 of 2008, they sought consideration against the post of Electric Cleaner. These are group D posts. In this O.A., they have also sought consideration against post of 1st Fireman. This is a Group C post. The applicants are claiming for consideration against the post of 1st Fireman. It is seen from the copy of Railway Board Guidelines No. E(NG)II-85 RC3/66 dated 28.10.1985 (Annexure A-8) that posts of first Fireman belongs to the Transportation (Power) Department. It appears that the applicants have found the posts which suit the qualification of their wards rather than seeing whether their wards have the requisite qualification or not.
10. We now turn to the scheme for a detailed examination. Para 2 (vi) of the Scheme states that the appointments are to be considered only in the category to which the intended retirees/applicants in this O.A. belong. Admittedly, they belong to the Category of Drivers in the running cadre. According to the applicants the lowest post in the category of Driver is 1st Fireman. According to the respondents, the lowest post in the category of Drivers is Assistant Loco Pilot. Neither of the parties have provided any administrative chart. Therefore, we turn to the recruitment rules for these 2 posts.
11. It is clear from the 2 sets of RRs provided that the posts of 1st Fireman claimed by the applicants and the Electric Assistant/Assistant Loco Pilot both have a pay scale Rs.950-1500. Both are basically to be filled up through promotion, the 1st Fireman from Fireman II and Assistant Loco Pilot from Fireman 1st as also 2nd Fireman and Artisan under certain provisos. Both have a window for direct recruitment in case adequate number of eligible people are not available in the feeder cadre. But the difference is that while 1st Fireman is eligible for lateral induction as Assistant Loco Pilot subject to having the requisite qualification the vice versa is not possible.
12. The promotional avenues for both posts is to various categories of Drivers. We are aware that in the Railways, there are provisions for lateral entries at various points which are inter-departmental, inter categorical in nature. This alone cannot determine the alignment of a post in a category as those entries are in the nature of providing avenues of promotions to existing employees and for enriching the department with a bouquet of talent and skill drawn from various sources. The same does not hold true in the case of first entry point for new recruits specially those, as in the case, who are covered by a specific scheme.
13. In this case, all decisions must be taken within the four corners of the Scheme which is that the consideration for appointment to the wards of the applicants must be made to the lowest grade in the category to which they belong. Therefore, the Driver Category is the deciding factor. In the labyrinth of the administrative structure of the Indian Railways, the applicants have not been able to show that either the 1st Fireman or the Electric Cleaner/Khalasi belong exclusively to the category of Driver. While it is not denied that they are eligible for lateral induction to post of Electrical Loco Pilot even here there is the requirement of educational qualification of ITI qualification.
14. If the logic of the applicants is extended as 1st Fireman is eligible for promotion/induction in the category of Driver and is therefore, be treated as belonging to the same category, then why not ask for recruitment to the post of 2nd Fireman? Here the applicants do not claim that 2nd Fireman post also belongs to the Driver category. Perhaps they do not do so because they possess qualification commensurate with a post carrying a higher pay level. In our view a first level post is said to be the level at which various entry routes converge and thereafter the avenue of promotion is along a single line. It is seen from OM No. E (NG) 1-84PM7/56 dated 3.11.1987 that the Assistant Loco Pilot is only moving upwards through the category of Drivers after all entry routes (i.e 1st Fireman, 2nd Fireman, Artisan and direct recruit) converge in this post. Therefore, we hold that the lowest post in the category of Drivers is that of the Assistant Loco Pilot.
15. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No costs.
Member (J) Member (A)
Manish/-
??
??
??
??
11