Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Kallol Chakraborty vs S E Railway on 14 September, 2018
1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CALCUTTA BENCH Present: Hbn'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member Hbn'ble Dr. NanditaChatterjee, Administrative Member OA. 947/2011 MA. 400/2017 Shri Mrinmoy Pal, son of Durgapada pal, aged about 37 years, working as Tech. Grade-Il, T.No. 51205, Shop No. 51 RW, residing at Inda, Kharagpur, Dist- Paschim Medinipore.
Shri G. Tarakeswara Rao, son of late G. Appanna, aged about 40 years, working as Tech. Grade-li, T. No. 51215, Shop- 51 TL, residing at RIy. Qrt.
ur, Dist. Paschim Medinipore.
L/D/16, Unit- 3, Mathurakati, Khar,
11
Stra1
Shri Khokan Sutradhar, o?S ra f4n a Sutradhar, aged about 44
years, working at Tec .. 'a 19 op- 51 RW, residing at
Balarampur, Kharag nipore.
Shri Harachand Ma on and ed about 41 years,
working as Tech. Gr e-1 . - 5 TL, residing at Joynagar
1/,,
Banstala, Jhargram.
Shri Sanjay Das, son of late as, aged about 37 years, working
as Tech Grade-iI;T. No. 51217, Shop-51 TL, residing at Taibagicha, Kharagpur, Dist- Paschim Medinipore.
Applicants.
-versus-
Union of the India through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata- 43.
The Chief Personnel Officer, S. E. Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata- 43.
The Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer (W), South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur, P.O. & P.S. Kharagpur, Dist- Paschim Medinipur.
WorkshopPersonnel Officer, South Eastern Railway; Kharagpur, P.O. & P.S. Kharagpur, Dist- Paschim Medinipur.
I 2 ri R. K. Pandit.
ShriA,. Dey Shri R K. Singh Shri U.T. Patnaik Shri S. Nag Shri 'S. Pandit.
All a:re working as Technician Grade-Il in the Shop No. 51 (Train Lighting and Rewiring).
Respondents.
O.A. 949/2011Shri Kallol Chakraborty(*O oyh raborty, aged about 37 years, working as Tech. Grl, T Bidhanpally, Kharagpur, Dtas __ . hop" TL, residing at Kharida, o ............. Applicant.
-versus-
Union of the India through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata- 43.
The Chief Personnel Officer, S. E. Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata- 43.
The Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer (W), South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur, P.O. & P.S. Kharagpur, Dist- Paschim Medinipur.
Workshop Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur, P.O. & P.S. Kharagpur, Dist- Paschim Medinipur.
ShriR.K. Pandit.
Shri A. Dey
7. Shri R. K. Singh / 3 .T. Patnaik Shri S. Nag Shri S. Pandit.
All are working as Technician Grade-Il in the Shop No. 51 (Train Lighting and Rewiring).
For the Applicant Mr. A. Chakraborty, Counsel For the Respondents Mr. A. K. Banerjee, Counsel Mr. S.K. Dutta, Counsel Heard on 28.08.2018 DateofOrder: £7.øL9' er Ms.. .Bidisha Banerlee, J/di [to ic ed cJ identical facts have been Since the identical s pleaded, the applicants ar ic ly agg7/ the OAs are taken up for analogous hearing with the co
2. The facts in a nutshell is that:
The applicants were initially appointed as Group 'D' employee in the Railway. Theywere promoted as Technician Grade Ill under ranker's quota with effect from 20.09.2002. The private respondents were selected for promotion to the post of Technician- III against 25% literate quota admittedly prior to the applicants. The applicants claimed that in terms of Estt. Sri. No. 52/98 circulated on 11.03.1998 as contained in Annexure A-i to the OA, the private respondents who were promoted from 25% Act Apprentices quota, commonly known as literate quota as to undergo a training of 6 months in the respective trades for 4 which they were selected and only upon successful completion of such training they become eligible to be posted as Technician Ill and therefore although the private respondents were selected in earlier selection they would rank junior to the applicants but below to 50% promotion quota of staff from lower grade eligible to be placed as such without any further training in terms of Estt. Sri. No. 52/98 and by virtue of their date of posting it fallen ahead of the private respondents. Vide an order dated 09.12.2009 the prayer of the private respondents was modified whereby and whereunder the applicants were placed belOw therivate respondents although the date .of appointment to Technician Ill was shown as 19.12.2009 whereas that of private respondents shown as 04.02.2003. Aggrieved by such 44he seniority the applicants have come up with this OA seeki t "8(a) That t effi 229 2010 issued by Dy. Chief Electrical Eng r ca le A e eye of law and therefore the same may Office Order date 011 issued by Workshop Personnel Officer can not be tenable in the eye of law and therefore the same may be quashed.
Senioritylist of Technician • Grade-Ill published as on 01.09.2006 cannot be sustained and therefore the same may be cancelled/quashed and the same may be recast and the names of the applicants may be placed above the private respondents and to grant all the consequential benefis.
• (d) Leave may be granted to add the other applicants in the original application under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT Procedure Rule."
S r applicants would strenuOuSlY urge in terms of Estt. Sri. No. 52/98, the private respondents had to be assigned seniority to Technician ill after qualifying and coming out successful in the training test. The provision of Estt. Sri. No. 52/98 is being as under:
"Procedure for filing up the posts of Skilled Artisan against 25% quota.
In terms of Para 159, indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume 1,1989, the vacancieS'in the artisan category of Skilled grade since re-designated as Technician (Trade) in scale Rs. 950-1500 (RPS)/3050-4590 (RSRP) are required tobe filled as under:
(I) 25% by selection from course completed Act Apprentices, lTl passed candidates and Matriculates from the open market; serving employees who are course completed Act Apprentices or lTI qualified could be consi . 1, this quota allowing age relaxation as ap AVJ ployees.' 2',ro asi ' d Khalasi Helpers (formerly ci s skilled respectively) with kj in n aid down in Apprentices n the lower grade as per the
(iii) 50'4 presc
2. The question of laying down a uniform procedure for filling up the vacancies against the quota referred to at 1(u) above ...............(not legible consideration of the Ministry of Railways. It has now been decided that henceforth the following procedure may be followed for filling up the vacancies in the category of Technician (Trade) grade Rs. 950-
1500 (RPS)/3050-4590 (RSRP) against the quota referred to and commonly known as qualified staff quota:-
(i) Khalasis/KhalaSi Helpers possessing the qualifications prescribed in the Apprentices Act with a minimum of three years regular service will be eligible to appear in the selection.
However, Scheduled. Caste and Scheduled Tribes candidates possessing the requisite qualifications will be eligible for being considered against the vacancies reserved for them as per the
-. extant instructions, if they have completed a minimum of one year's. regu.IarsetViCe 11
(ii) All the eligible volunteering employees may be subjected to, a written test followed by a viva-voce. Distribution of marks between written test and viva-voce may be 85 and 15 respectively. Those securing 60% marks in the written test may be eligible to be called for viva-voce .................(not eligible) qualifiedbeing included in the panel.
(iii)The panel may be drawn up on the basis of seniority from amongst those who qualify the total number to be empanelled not exceeding the number of vacancies assessed to be filled against the prescribed quota. There will be no classification of äutstanding.
(iv) The empanelled staff possessing the qualification of ITI/Course completed Act Apprenticeship in the relevant trade in the Railway Establishment may be subjected to a trade test and those passing the same may be promoted as Technician (Trade) grade Rs. 950-1500/3050-4590 (RSRP
(v)Such of the empanelled staff as do not possess the qualification of lTl/Course Completed Act Apprenticeship in the relevant tr . Railway Establishment may be imparted
(vi) On ie ese A d training the staff may be . • sh of them as pass the trade subject d.o ' test m •ye ch%i Ti (Trade) grade Rs. 950-
1500/3 -45
(vii) Seni ri aff on •i in the Skilled grade will be
regulated 'r f tREM.i.e. with reference to
the date o . ter passing the trade test)
maintaining their in er-se-.seniority in the respective groups as at (iv) and (v) above. (This also disposes of CLW5 lettr No 27236/66E/Pt. X dated 6.11.96)"
The Id. Counsel for official respondents would defend the Administration and the modified seniority list by submitting that the Railways have acted in terms of Estt. Sri. No. 6/95 which provides that candidates selected for appointment at lower selection shall be senio,r to those selected later irrespective date of joining.
Ld. Counsel would submit that the. position was adequately brought to the noti.ce of the applicants in response to their appeal seeking rectification of the alleged anomaly in the seniority list published in..2009.
I ,Dutta, Id. Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents Ki, vould vociferously submit that while introducjng the provision of seniority list on ' -6 to the OA, evidentiy the representation 09.12.2009 as contained in Annexure A was called for from the staff in regard to any dispute in the seniority to be its publication. The applicants failed t submit submitted w;ithin one month from their representations within time and therefore the representations were 'rejected and rightly so. However, Id. Counsel would further submit that the appIiátiOr was time barred since the seniority list of 2006 .was sought to be challengeø. '
5. H4rd Id. Counsel for both the parties and perused the rnater,its placed on record. Stra#.
6 we noticed that in r wd e private respondents that the aplication was time Pcd the p lication is well within time since the cause of action ar en the seniority was recast affecting the right of the aplica' h."cant preferred representation on 05 12' 2010 i.e. within one year from the date of publication of seniority list and challnged the order dated 27.04.2011 issued in response to.their representation, by filing of this 0 A on 21 09 2011 Therefore, the ground of objection is not substantiated. We further noted that even i the recast seniority list the date of appOintment of p&rsons from later date i.e. 2003 figured above the person whose date of appointment is September, 2002 which placement is incomprehensible, in 0 ' I indicate whether have failed to
7. The respondents Estt. SrL No; 52/98 mandated fixation of seniority with reference to the date of gassing trade test/ completion of training for promotion i.e. whether successful completion of training was sine qua non to such promotion and therefore whether seniority in the promotional post had to be reckoned from the date of successful completion of training and not from the date of promotion.
F AccordinglY, we quash the impugned order and remand back the mattettO
8. the authorities to pass an order afresh in accordance with Estt. SrI. No. 52/8 and recast the seniority list if required after providing opportunity of hearing to both the applicafltS as well as private respondents. The OAs are accordingly disposed of. No costs.
(BidhaBariee)
(Dr. NanditaChatterjee) Member(J)
Member(A).
-
pd