Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Rajeev Kumar vs M/O Railways on 15 March, 2019
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL:-HYDERABAD BENCH
HYDERABAD
OA/021/0238/2019
Dated: 15.08.2019
BETWEEN:
RAIEEV KUMAR,
S/o. Nag Naryan Prasad,,
Aged about 37 years,
Oce: Station Master, Gr. C,
Oharamabad Railway Station,
Hyderabad Division,
South Central Railway,
Nanded District, Maharashtra.
Ap aicant
AND
Union of India,
rep. by its General Manager,
South Central Rallway,
Secunderabad,
ps
>
2. The Chief Operating Manager,
South Central Railway,
Secunderabad.
3, The Chief Personnel Officer,
South Central Ralway,
Secunderabad.
&, The Divisional Railway Manager,
South Central Railway,
Hyderabad Division,
Secunderabad, Respondents
Counsel for the applicants > Dr. A. Raghu Kumar
Counsel for the respondents 'Mr. 8M. Patnaik,
SC for Railways.
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO, MEMBER O)}
THE HON'BLE MR. B.AV.SUDHAKAR, MEMBER {A}
ORAL ORDER
iPer Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Kantha Rao, Mernber(})] Heard Dr. A, Raghukumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. o.M. Patnaik, learned SC for Railways for the respondents.
oe The applicant ts Station Master, Gr.C working Hyderabad division of South Central Railway. He applied for inter-zenal transfer. His application was forwarded to the General Manager, East Central Railway who agreed to take him to East Central Railway on inter-zonal transfer. There are several other employees like the applicant in the present O.A. Some inter-zonal transfers were given effect to and some were not. Ag gerieved by the same, same of the employees whose requests for inter-zonal transfers were considered but were not relieved, approached the Tribunal by filing OLA, Nos/O20/258 to 262, 272, 390 to 392, 444 to 448, 559, 560, 1080, 1081 & 1129 to 1132/2015. The Tribunal disposed of the Q.As an merits by a common order dated 21.4.2016 and directed the respondent Railways to relieve the applicants therein within the time prescribed in the said order. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed Writ Petition No3 [544i 2016 & batch. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court by order dated 31.10.2017 confirming the order passed by the Tribunal and directed the Railway administration to effect the inter- zonal transfers in respect of the respondents therein by 28.2.2018 by relieving them to enable them to join in thelr transferred places. To facilitate the respondents in the Writ Petition, the Railway Reorultment Board was further directed to complete the process of recruitment by SLL2018. The applicant herein approached the Tribunal praying for the same relief His e grievance is 3 * that even though more than 6 rimtheshave elapsed, his inter-zonal transfer was not given effect to and he was not relieved from the present place to enable him to join in the transferred place.
3. The learned counsel for respondents inter-alia contended as follows:
i} The applications of the employees are registered basing on zonal priogdty, There are 1006 vacancies of Goods Guards existing as on date over the entire cone and 421 in Secunderabad Division. Therefore, a decision was made to releve the candidates only after the position is unproved since Station Master post is a sensitive safety category directly connected with train operations. 'They refuted the contentions of the applicants that the East Central Railway is still willing to accommodate the applicants. According to the respondents, the no objection given is conditional and its validity period is already over. It is further contended by the respondents that the applicant has no night for inter-zonal transfer and in the exigencies of service, his request for inter-zonal transfer can be refected. According to the respondents, the applicant has no claim as perspective right for transfer to another Railway or another establishment and, therefore, according to the respondents, it is not mandatory on their part to relieve the applicant.
1} Nextly, it is submitted that the Railway Recruttment Board had supplied 383 papers of Goods Guards but 167 bad not joined the post. Therefore, action is on hand te convince the Railway Recruitment Board for same more RRB papers for Station Masters, it is submitted that while appreciating the vance of the employees, the respondents are bound to ty look after the safety of the travelling public rather than giving preference to individual needs. Drawing a distinction between Station Master category and vw Eseneae if Pee eee « Set & tod Goads Guards category it is sinted sat' Goods Guards are of vital safety vategory where they have to work in the running train for certain distance whereas Station Master works in the station attending operational duties. 'The pay levels are also said to be different and, therefore, according to the respondents, both categories cannot be compared with each other. In Station Master's case, the version of the respondents seems to be that the Hon'ble High Court had directed the Railway Recrultment Board to supply papers to Railway administration and the dictum laid down will not be applicable in the ase of Goods Guards.
rir HD it is further submitted that under Employment Notice dated S20158, Railway Recruitment Board had allotted 383 persons out of which 216 had joined and the R.R.B. has not given any replacement. On the other hand there are 930 vacancies in the Guards catezory as on date. Thus, according to the leamed counsel for respondents, relieving the applicant would cause operational hazards and endanger the safety of general public Ww) Lastly, it is submitted that ensuring safety is paramount function of Indian Railways which cannot be compromised. Therefore, relieving the applicant who is Station Master will jeopardize the travelling public, Contending as above, the learned counsel for respondents sought fo dismiss the OLA.
4. The main contention af the respondent Railways appears to be that if the applicant who is Station Master is relieved, the safety of general public would be in jeopardy and, therefore, they prayed not to grant any direction to relieve the Station Masters.
Some 5, Before proceeding to di§ Pike OA, the main grounds on which oe the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions are required to be noticed, In the earlier O.As against which Writ Petitions were Aled, the respondent Railways put forth the same contentions which are now taken in the instant OLA. The applcants in those cases also contended that the delay in relieving them would jeopardize their career interest in the Railways to which they have sought transfer. In this context, it requires to be noticed that though the Railways have taken a decision to effect inter-zonal transfers basing on a priority list and in a time bound manner, the cases of some juniors were considered ignoring the requests of seniors. This has been made out from the pisadmas of both the parties and there is no dispute about the said fact and the said issue needs no illustration. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court repelled the contention of the respondent Railways that the applicants have no right for transfer to another Railway or another establishment. The Division Bench made an observation that there is always aground for not relieving the respondents therein even after three years of we the transter orders. The findings recerded by the Division Bench of the High oe Court in para 9 & 10 are as follows:
SQ, In the cases on hand, & is not the case of the Administration that the requests of the respondents for Zonal transfer were Hable to be rejected. Their requests were already accepted. The respondents did not go to the Tnibunal seeking a positive mandannes directing the Raibvay Administration to transfer them from one zone fo another. Tf they were seeking a transfer through Court order, the Adminisiration may be entitled to put Rule 226 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code,
10. But onee their requests for 4onal transfers have been accepted, the same cannot be kept in cold storage.
if we have a look at the thne line of events, it could be seen that by the Circular dated 2.1 1.20045, the Administration was directed to draw a time-bound programme. Exactly a period of 12 years has now oo] s VEE POLE passed from the da the said Circular. No time-
bound programme haSheen chalked ont by the Administration. The Circular also mandates that existence of vacancies need not deter the unplementation of the orders of transfer. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in allowing the applications of the _ contesting respondents."
Therefore, the sarne contentions which are advanced in the present O.As by ihe respondents, were urged before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court, considering all the facts and circumstances, passed the above mentioned order.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant contended that if the inter-zonal transfers are not given effect and the applicant is not relieved, career prospects of the applicant, education of his children and other family issues will be adversely affected. He also brought to our notice the faet that the applicant agreed to take up the bottom most seniority. Therefore, any rel further delay in effecting the inter-zonal transfer will jeopardize his prospects.
*?
i On the other hand, leamed Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that if the applicant is directed to be relieved, it would endanger public safety and cause a let of trouble for the Railway administration. The same contention in respect of the Station Masters was advanced before the Hon"ble High Court. But the Hon'ble High Court did net accept the same. The inter-zonal transfers of several cadres have been accepted by the respondent Railways and, therefore, we think it net proper te draw a distinctlon between various categories of employees and the Railway Adnunistration is under duty to give effect to the said inter-zonal transfers by ee gs - < relieving the anolicant. ss = relieving the applica Le ROK -
8. Mr. S.M. Pamaik, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent Railways contended that the applicant waited for the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforementioned Writ Petitions and filed the present O.A. As the applicant is not party to the said O.As, he has not . . a PEST . 3 " .. y wey eS x cog Riga ce ee oe: 'a wee * .
approached the Tribunal at appropriate time for redressal of his grievance, the present QA gughi not to have been admitted by the Tribunal on account of the > * = bar of limitation which is set out u/S 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Aecording to the learned counsel, after the decision for inter-zonal transfers was taken, the applicant ought to have approached the Tribunal within the period preseribed u/S 21 of the Tribunals Act. The learned Standing counsel aiso relied an a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.S. Balu & Another ve State of Kerala & Others dated 13.1.2009 wherein the Supreme Court in para 18 af the pudgement held as follows:
"18. itis also well settled principle of law that "delay defeata equity". Goverment Order was issued on
13.).2002. Appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereef, Only after the writ petitions Aled by others were allowed and State of Kerala preferred an appeal thereagaimst, they impleaded themselves as pariy respondents. It is new a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates wha obtain the benefit of the judgement. Et is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala ar the Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage.
In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 278, this Court held:
"la There is anotheraspest "of the matter which cannot be lost sight af. The respondents herein filed a writ petition afler 17 years. They did not agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest possible opportunity. They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their ease that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said scale of pay. After such a long time, therefore, the writ petitions could not have been entertained even if they are similarly situated. ft ig trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may nat be exercised In favour of those who approach the court after a long ime. Delay and laches are relevant facts for exercise of equitable jurisdiction."
g, The Judgment relied on by the learned Stand: ne Counsel, in our view, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The said decision relates to appointment and the Supreme Court with reference to the facts of the case took a view that the applicants only after knowing about the decision rendered by the High Court in favour of some other candidates approached the High Court and, therefore, they are not entitled for the relief which was riven te the applicants before the High Court. The fact situation in the case befure the x Supreme Court and in the present OAs is distinguishable. In the case before the Supreme Court, the appellants therein sought a mandamus in re espect of their right to appointment. In the present O.A, the request of the applicant for their inter-zonal transfer was already considered by the Railway e administration and he approached the Tribunal as the same Was not given effect to even afler 6 month. Since the inter-zonal transfers af the applicant and other employees were sought to be given effect to by the Raihway administration in a time bound manner basing on priority list, at ne point of time his application was rejected for inter-zonal transfer. Since as per the s ; "soaps EEE = ae s a fe oS.
policy of Railways, it has to be done adifne bound manner, the applican waited for implementation and as it was not done within a reasonable time, he approached the Tribunal. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the sontention that the relief prayed for by the applicant in the present O.A. is barred by limitation u/S$ 21 of the Administrative Tribun qais Act.
10. As regards the question whether the decision of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in the above Writ Petition applies to the applicant in the present cases, we are of view that it applies to the Railways as weil as the Railway employees whose requests for infer-zonal transfers were approved and have heen waiting for their release from their respective places.
ae We took notice of the statement of the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents abaut the inconvenience that would be caused to the Railways in the event of relieving the applicant immediately. At the same time, we are conscious of the fact that the finalleation of the relieving of the applicant cannot be put on hold by the Railways indefinitely and the Railway administration has to effect inter-zonal transfers within a reasonable time.
i. After rendering the aforementioned judgement by the Division Bench ¥ of the Hon'ble High Court, the Respondent Railways ought to have taken steps to relieve the employees whose requests for inter-zonal transfers are accepted, But the Railway administration only gave effect to the order passed we by the Hon'ble high Court in the above batch of Writ Petitions.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that a direction requires to be given to the respondent Railways to release the applicant so as * to enable him te join in the transferred place. Therefore, the respondents are directed to take steps to relieve the applicant to his transferred place within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.
i4, The OLA is, therefore, allowed to the extent indicated abave. There shall be no order as to casts.
40