Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
P.M.George vs Union Of India Represented By The on 3 April, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH O.A. NO. 720 OF 2008 Friday, this the 3rd day of April, 2009. CORAM: HON'BLE Dr.K.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. P.M.George Station Master Grade II Padil Railway Station Southern Railway, Palghat Division, Palghat Residing at Parasseril House, Industrial Estate PO Palghat 2. Karunakumar C Station Master Grade II Padil Railway Station Southern Railway, Palghat Division, Palghat Residing at Sree Deepam, Sree Durga Nagar Kallekulangara Post, Palghat ... Applicants (By Advocate Mr. Marin G Thottan ) versus 1. Union of India represented by the General Manager Southern Railway Chennai - 3 2. The Chief personnel Officer Southern Railway, Chennai - 3 3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer Southern Railway, Palghat Division Palghat ... Respondents (By Advocate Mr.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil ) The application having been heard on 01.04.2009, the Tribunal on 03.04.2009 delivered the following:- O R D E R
HON'BLE Dr.K.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The applicants (two in number) are Ex-servicemen and they belong to Palghat Division. They were selected by RRB/TVC for appointment as Traffic Apprentices in the scale of Rs.5500-9000 and were appointed in erstwhile undivided Palghat Division and were directed to undergo training from 25.04.2006 at ZRTI/TPJ for a period of two years. The offer of appointment vide Annexure A-2 inter-alia stipulated the initial posting and subsequent promotion would normally be in Palghat Division but the applicants would remain liable in the exigencies of service to be transferred anywhere on the Southern Railway system. Both the applicants were absorbed temporarily in the present Palghat Division vide Office order dated 29.06.2008.
2. With the formation of new Salem Division, carved out mainly from Palghat Division, effective from November, 2007 (closure of cadre with Salem Division and Palghat Division having been affected from 15.05.2008). The applicant apprehended that they would be shifted from Palghat Division to be posted to Salem Division. Accordingly, they penned representations vide Annexures A-3 and A-4. They have filed this OA for a declaration that they are entitled to continue to maintain their lien in the cadre of SM-II in Palghat Division of Southern Railway and for a direction to the respondents to permit them to continue as SM-II in Palghat Division.
3. Respondents have contested the OA. After highlighting the fact that the applicants stood posted to Palghat Division only on temporary basis, they referred to the concrete decision taken with regard to placement of man power in Salem and Palghat Divisions. Para 9 and 10 of the counter in this regard are reproduced below:
9. "In OA No.413/2008 filed by Station Masters of Salem Division and OA No.235/2008 filed by Assistant Loco Pilot of Salem Division, a commitment has been made before this Hon'ble Tribunal that vacancies will be filled, considering request transfer of staff from Salem o Palghat on 1: 1 basis as per their priority of registration after convening a meeting at Headquarters level on 03.10.2008. In teh meeting some devisions were arrived at to amicably solve the issue of transfer registrants from Salem Division to Palghat in which the third decision was as follows :
" 10 ASMs and 7 Traffic Apprentices who have been temporarily posted to PGT Division will be relieved to Salem Division and to that extent, SA Division will relive 17 ASMs in the order of priority. This is further subject to the condition that on mutual consultation, it has to be ensured that vacancies in the particular grade do exist at PGT Division before relieving."
10. The said decision was commuinc9ated to the Division by CPO/MAS vide letter No.P(S) 676/II/SMs/A dated 06.10.2008. A copy of the same is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R-1. Out of the 7 Traffic Apprentices referred to above two are the applicants."
4. The Annexure R-1 referred to in Para 10 of the counter as extracted above reflects the decision taken by the Railways and the same is as under :
" After examining the issues raised by DPO/PGT and DPO/SA, the following decisions are arrived at :
1) Indents pending with RRB/MAS for the post of ASM, will be enhanced by 56 and Traffic Apprentice by 34 as per the requirement projected by SA Division.
2) As against four Pro-ASMs already transferred by PGT Division to SA Division, 2 more SMs will be relieved to PGT Division.
3) 10 ASMs and 7 Traffic Apprentices who have been temporarily posted to PGT Division will be relieved to SA Division and to that extent, SA Division will relieve 17 ASMs in the order of priority. This is further subject to the condition that on mutual consultation, it has to be ensured that vacancies in the particular grade do exist at PGT Division before relieving.
4) 5 ASMs alloted to PGT Division and undergoing training will be completing training during January 2009. They will be sent to SA Division in lieu of which SA Division will relieve 2 SMs to PGT Division.
5) There are 12 Traffic Apprentices selected through LDCE and undergoing training at PGT Division. Out of them three belong tot eh present PGT Division jurisdiction and 9 are from the present SA Division jurisdiction. The 9 Traffic Apprentices who belong to SA Division jurisdiction will also be relieved to SA Division. Accordingly, 9 SMs in the order of priority will be relieved by SA to PGT Division.
6) It was represented by DPO/SA that relieving of SMs having lien at PGT Division will amount to overlooking the priority of IRT registrants, orders in favour of whom have already been issued. In this regard, it is made clear that the position of the SMs having lien at PGT Division is different from such or those SMs of SA Division, who have requested for transfer to other Railways. The PGT Division SMs continue their lien with PGT Division ever since formation of SA Division and they are to be relieved to PGT Division, which is not a case of transfer.
Thereby it may be a case of overlooking the priority registrants.
This issues with the approval of CPO."
5. Counsel for applicant submitted that Traffic Apprentice secures regular reappointment from the very date of commencement of training and he is holding a post. Para 125 of IREM (Vol.I) 1989 Edition refers. As per the Scheme 25% of the post in the categories of Section Controllers, Station Masters, Yard Masters and Traffic Inspectors in scale Rs.1400-2600 / 1600-2660 will be filled by recruitment as Traffic Apprentices as under :
(i) 15% plus shortfall, if any, against LDCE quota as at (ii) below, by direct recruitment through the Railway Recruitment Boards; and (Authority Board's letter No.E(NG)1-99/PM1/29 dated 20-04-2000)
(ii) 10% through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination from amongst serving staff (other than Ministerial) in the Traffic (Transportation) Department who are graduates and are upto 40 years of age."
The applicants are holding such post from 2006 onwards and since they belong to Palghat area and are Ex-servicemen it would be appropriate if their request for having lien at Palghat is acceded to by the Railways. Counsel for applicant has been extremely fair to submit that no vested legal right as crystalized by virtue of the appointment order in respect of the place of posting of the applicants though in Para 20 it has been stated that they would be normally posted in Palghat Division. He has stated that the applicants would be contended if the posting may be elsewhere but the lien be with Palghat Division.
6. Counsel for respondents on instructions from the Senior officers from both Salem and Palghat Divisions submitted that the decision arrived vide Annexure R-1 is carried out and the same runs smoothly. If the request of the applicants is acceded to, the same would hamper the smooth execution of the decision taken vide Annexure R-1. Counsel also expressed that administratively, it may not be feasible to keep the lien at one Division and asking the applicant to function in another Division though in some cases out of administrative exigencies such an arrangement is ordered but the same is to be kept of the minimum.
7. Arguments were heard and documents perused. Para 20 of offer of appointment which stipulates that the applicants posting will be at Palghat is also clamped with a rider that the applicant would remain liable in the exigencies of services be transferred anywhere on the Southern Railway System. At the time when this offer was made to the applicant, carving out of Salem from Palghat Division was not conceived. However, by the time the applicants completed their training, the new Division came into existence. And as such, necessity was felt that all the new entrants will be attached to Salem Division to facilitate the extra undivided Palghat Division employees at present posted at Salem Division to move to Palghat Division as early as possible. As such, there is no option for the Railways, save, to post the applicants as per the decision taken to Salem Division.
8. The applicants request for retention at Palghat Division as could be seen vide Annexures A-3 and A-4 is on account of the fact that the applicants family is near Palghat. If they are prepared to serve under Salem Division retaining lien at Palghat it may not serve any purpose as their physical presence may not be there in Palghat instead within Salem Division if they are posted in such a fashion they may remain close to Palghat Division that may be of much immense use to the applicants. As such, respondents may post the applicants in Salem Division but as far as possible if they are posted in such Stations which may be proximate to Palghat Division, it may serve both the administration and the applicants convenience. This suggestions is purely subject to feasibility of such posting and not as a matter of any vested right accrued to the applicant. Respondents shall discuss with the authorities in this regard.
9. With the above observation, OA is disposed of. No costs.
Dated, the 3rd April, 2009.
Dr.K.B.S.RAJAN JUDICIAL MEMBER vs