Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Mohan vs Union Of India Through The Principal ... on 20 April, 2011
Reserved CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD ***** (THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2011) Honble Dr.K.B.S. Rajan, Member (J) Honble Mr. D. C. Lakha, Member (A) Original Application No.1141 of 2000 (U/s 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985) 1. Mohan, A/a. 40 years, S/o Hari, Posted as Diesel Assistant, Central Railway Banda under the Power Controller, Central Railway Banda. 2. Janki Prasad, A/a 39 years, S/o Sri Durga Prasad, Posted as Diesel Asstt., Central Railway Banda, under Power Controller Central Railways Banda. Applicants Advocates Present for Applicants :Shri A.D.Prakash Shri H.P.Pandey Shri A. K. Pandey Versus 1. Union of India through the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager/Divisional Railway Manager (P), Central Railways, Jhansi. 3. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (TRO), Central Railways, Jhansi. 4. The Asstt. Personnel Officer, In the Office of Divisional Railway Manager (P), Central Railways, Jhansi. Respondents Present for Respondents : Shri P. Mathur Shri Amit Sthalkar Advocate Along with Original Application No.1281 of 2000 (U/s 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985) Nisar Khan S/o Bashir Khan working as Asst. Driver under Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (TRO), Central Railway Jhansi Resident of Mohalla Isai tola, Prem Nagar, Jhansi. Applicant Present for Applicant :Shri A. K. Pandey, Advocate. Versus 1. Union of India, through the General Manager Central Railway Mumbai CST. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, (Personal) D.R.Ms Office, Central Railway, Jhansi 3. The Sr. Div. Electrical Engineer (TRO) D.R.Ms Office, Central Railway, Jhansi. 4. The Chief Crew Controller, Loco Shed, Central Railway, Jhansi. Respondents Present for Respondents : Shri Amit Sthalkar Advocate O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon. Dr. K. B. S. Rajan, Member-J) Heard Shri Monish Ranjan Tiwari holding brief of Shri A. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and counsel for the respondents is permitted to file written submission.
2. As these two OAs. have common issues, the same are decided in this order. For reference purpose, OA No. 1141/00 is taken as the pilot case.
3. Briefly stated, the applicants were initially appointed as Khalasi in the Jhansi Division and they were later promoted as Fireman Gr.-II and Fireman Gr.-I. The pay scale of fireman Gr.-II and Fireman Grade- I is comparable to that of Diesel Assistant and Assistant Electrical Drivers.
4. That on the shrinkage of Steam Section and corresponding expansion in the Diesel Locomotive and thereafter, Electrical Locomotive, persons posted in Steam Section had to be rendered surplus. In order to accommodate them in the service, such surpluses were imparted conversion course and thereafter, they were absorbed as Diesel Assistant or Assistant Electrical Drivers. It was decided by the Respondents that experience in the Steam Section was also taken into account for the purpose of fixation of seniority at the time of joining the Diesel or Electrical Division. However, when a challenge was made to the above decision of the Railways, the Apex Court held in the case of South Eastern Railways Vs. Ram Narayan Singh that notwithstanding the fact that the two posts were carrying the same pay scale/cadre in the Diesel or Electrical and erstwhile Steam, persons hitherto in the steam wing could get experience in the other wing only after attending the conversion course and thus, their seniority should be reckoned only from the date they joined as Diesel Assistant or Electrical Driver. The case of Rama Kant Chaturvedi Vs. Divisional Superintendent Northern Railway, Moradabad decided by the Apex court was also on the same line in respect of Electrical Drivers.
5. Though the combined seniority list would form the base, when it comes to the question of promotion to the higher post in the respective wing viz; Electrical Wing and Diesel Wing, the seniority in the respective Wing alone counts. For example, if two persons, after conversion course, joined the Diesel Wing and the Electrical Wing respectively on the same date, and continued in these wings, their seniority would be from the same date. However, if both of them joined one particular wing, say the Diesel Wing and after some time (i.e. after a year or two), one of them switches over to the other wing, i.e. Electrical wing, for the purpose of promotion in the electrical wing, that persons seniority would be reckoned only from that date he joined the electrical wing, notwithstanding the fact that both of them after completing the conversion course joined the diesel wing on the same day.
6. In O.A. No.1141 of 2000, the applicants have prayed for the following relief/(s):
1/- to quash the order dated 20.9.2000 (Annexure AI to CompI) and Circular dated 28/31st July 2000 (Annexure A2 to Comp I) in so far as it relates to the applicants.
2/- to issue a mandamus directing the respondent not to disturb the applicants status as Diesel Assistants in pursuance of their appointment order dated 18.10.1988 and to give all consequential benefits including the seniority as Diesel Assistant on the basis of date of appointment as Diesel Asstt. i.e. 18th Oct. 1988.
3/- to issue mandamus directing the respondents to give all consequential benefits to the applicants including further promotion to the higher grade from the date juniors to the applicants have been promoted and other consequential benefits.
7. And, in O.A. No.1281 of 2000 the applicant has prayed for the following relief/(s):
1. To quash the impugned orders dated 21/09/2000 and 17/10/2000 and direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties as assistant driver and consider his regularization from the date his juniors have been regularized.
2. To direct the respondents to consider the promotion of the applicant for further promotion the post of shunter and goods driver in the impugned selection notification dated 20/10/2000 and 23/10/2000 on the basis of his seniority.
3. To direct the respondents to assign correct seniority position to the applicant in accordance with the rules as assistant Driver.
8. The applicants are not unhappy as to the bifurcation of the seniority list at the time of promotion in the respective wing. For, the settled position in respect of seniority is as under:-
a. Though there may be a combined seniority, the same would not be operated when promotion is considered in respect of one wing i.e. Electrical or diesel wing. It would be the seniority in that particular wing that would be considered.
b. While fixing the seniority in a particular wing, the same would be reckoned after completion of the conversion course and not earlier.
c. If an individual completes a conversion course and joins Diesel or electrical wing and then he switches over to the other i.e. electrical or diesel wing, then for promotion to the higher post his seniority based on the date of his joining that wing alone would be considered.
9. So far, so good. However, the grievance of the applicants is that when conversion training is sufficient to switch over to the Diesel or electrical wing, the respondents insisted upon qualifying in the screening test and failure to participate in the screening test has been viewed by the Respondent as disabling the individuals for promotion to the higher grade. Respondents insist upon qualifying in the screening test even when an individual completed the conversion course. Annexures A-1 and A-2 refer. The applicants have thus challenged the said orders.
10. Respondents have contested the O.A. Their contention is that training of Goods Driver is a Primary requirement for promotion but the post of Goods Driver is a selection Post and no body has any right to be promoted regularly as Goods Driver without passing the selection or screening test for Goods Driver.
11. The applicants have preferred rejoinder reiterating their contentions and averments as they did in their O.As.
12. Counsel for the applicants heard and parties permitted to file their written submission as well. However, no written submission was received.
13. Arguments were heard and documents perused. Perhaps the applicants are under a misconception that seniority itself would be the criteria for promotion. Seniority is required to work out the zone of consideration and promotion shall be on the basis of prescribed procedure. If the procedure warrants screening of all the persons in the feeder category and others who are already in the same wing (diesel or electrical) are subjected to such screening test, there cannot be an exception to the same in respect of the steam side surpluses who have undergone the conversion course. The post of Goods Driver being a safety category post, there is no question of promotion to that post on the basis of mere seniority. We do not, therefore, find any illegality in insisting pass in the screening test as a pre-requisite to the promotion to the post of Goods Driver, which is a selection post and is also a safety post.
14. Thus, the OAs being devoid of merits, are dismissed. No cost.
Member (A) Member (J)
Shashi
??
??
??
??
8