Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
K Sabitha vs Southern Railway on 4 September, 2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 180/00258/2024
Wednesday, this the 4th day of September, 2024.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
K. Sabitha, aged 38 years, W/o. Vijesh,
Travelling Ticket Inspector/Southern Railway,
Madurai Division, Madurai - 625 016.
Permanent Address : "Cheyayath House", Edakkulam,
Koyilandi, Kozhikode District - 673 306. - Applicant
[By Advocates: Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy]
Versus
1. Union of India represented by the General Manager,
Southern Railway, Headquarters Office, Park Town P.O.,
Chennai - 600 003.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Southern Railway, Madurai Division, Madurai - 625 016.
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Madurai Division, Madurai - 625 016.
4. The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway,
Thiruvananthapuram Division, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 014.
5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram Division,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 014.
6. Shri Muthukumar G, Travelling Ticket Inspector,
Rameshwaram Railway Station, Ramanathapuram
District - 623 526. Tamil Nadu. - Respondents
[By Advocate : Mrs. O.M. Shalina, SCGSC for R-1 to 5]
The Original Application having been heard on 22.08.2024, the
Tribunal on 04.09.2024 delivered the following:
2
O.A No. 180/00258/2024
O R D E R :-
The applicant is a graduate with higher Diploma in Cooperation. She joined the Madurai Division of Indian Railways as a Sweeper cum Porter on 01.03.2015. She was selected for promotion as a Train Ticket Examiner in 2017 and placed in the panel. After undergoing training, she was promoted and appointed as Ticket Examiner by Annexure A-2 order dated 02.01.2019. She joined the post on 03.01.2019. Thereafter, she was promoted as Senior Ticket Examiner on 09.11.2021 and later as Travelling Ticket Inspector on 02.12.2023.
2. While so, she was offered an inter divisional mutual transfer with the 6th respondent, Shri Muthukumar, who was then in Trivandrum Division, as a Travelling Ticket Inspector. By Annexure A-3 Office Order dated 15.03.2024, Muthukumar was relieved from Trivandrum Division. He joined the Madurai Division by Annexure A-4 order dated 19.03.2024. The applicant was ordered to be transferred to Trivandrum Division by Annexure A-5 order dated 07.03.2024 of the Divisional Office, Madurai. While so, by Annexure A-1 order dated 02.04.2024, the mutual transfer between the the applicant and the 6 th respondent was cancelled and 3 O.A No. 180/00258/2024 Shri Muthukumar, was ordered to be repatriated back to Trivandrum Division at the earliest. Assailing Annexure A-1, the applicant has approached this Tribunal.
3. The respondents have filed a detailed reply statement, traversing the allegations made in the Original Application.
4. Annexure A-1 was assailed by the applicant essentially on two grounds. Firstly, it was contended that there were two factual mistakes in Annexure A-1 order in relation to the date of taking independent charge by the applicant in TE cadre and also regarding the formation of CCTC cadre. Both the factual mistakes go to the root of the order under challenge, it was contended. The second contention was that, in the reply statement, a totally new ground which was distinct and different from that was disclosed in Annexure A-1 was set up, and accordingly, the respondent did not have a consistent case in cancelling the mutual transfer order.
5. In the nature of the above contention, it is essential to quote Annexure A-1 in extenso, which reads as follows:-
4
O.A No. 180/00258/2024 "With reference to above, Sri Muthukumar G, TTI/TVC Divn(PF No. 16404040182) who was transferred to MDU Divn in level-06 on IDMT with Smt Sabitha K, TTI/MDU and the employee was relieved on 18.03.2024. Smt Sabitha K was appointed in Gr. D in 01.03.2013 and took ID in TE cadre as on 05.09.2019 (i.e after the formation of CCTC as on 28.02.2018). So she has to be absorbed in CCTC cadre only instead of TE cadre w.e.f. 05.09.2019.
Accordingly, th Mutual transfer order between these employees is now cancelled and Sri Muthukumar G, TTI may be repatriated back to TVC divn at the earliest."
6. Essentially, the learned SCGSC appearing for the respondents contended that Annexure A-1 is not an order, but only an inter divisional communication, issued by Assistant Personnel Officer on behalf of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Trivandrum, addressed to the Senior DPO/MDU. It was not a formal order of cancellation, but only a departmental communication which has been projected as an order under challenge. Evidently, Annexure A-1 is addressed by APO, Trivandrum Division to DPO, Madurai, and hence is only an inter divisional communication.
7. Advancing the first ground of attack, the learned Counsel for the applicant contended that applicant was appointed as Ticket Examiner on 02.01.2019. As per Annexure A-1, he took independent duty on 05.09.2019. It was contended that Annexure A-2 dated 02.01.2019 shows that applicant 5 O.A No. 180/00258/2024 and others were empanelled and training was given to them from 15.10.2018 to 16.11.2018. Applicant was promoted as Ticket Examiner by Annexure A-2 order dated 02.01.2019. It was specifically pleaded in the Original Application that she took charge on 03.01.2019. The learned SCGSC also fairly conceded that there was a factual mistake in the above date mentioned in the Annexure A-1. However, it was contended that it was neither a material mistake nor the ground on which the applicant's mutual transfer was proposed to be cancelled.
8. It was further pointed out by the learned Counsel for the applicant that as per Annexure A-1, CCTC was formed on 28.02.2018, which was factually incorrect. It was stated in Annexure A-1 that the applicant took independent duty in TE Cadre as on 05.09.2019, after the formation of CCTC and hence she ought to have been absorbed in CCTC cadre only, instead of TE Cadre. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that there was no merger on 28.02.2018 and the merger was on 05.04.2019. Consequently, she correctly took independent duty in TE Cadre. To substantiate this, the learned Counsel for the applicant relied on Annexure A-6 dated 22.02.02018 and Annexure A-7 dated 05.04.2019. 6
O.A No. 180/00258/2024
9. Before going into the sustainability of above contention, it is essential to refer to the ground set up by the respondents in their reply statement. In para 3 of the reply statement, it is stated that much before the filing of the above O.A on 10.04.2024, the 6 th respondent by Annexure R-1(B) letter, had expressed his unwillingness to join as CCTC in level-3 at Madurai Division. The Divisional Personnel Officer of Madurai Division informed the unwillingness of the 6th respondent to the 5th respondent, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Thiruvananthapuram Division by Annexure R-1 (A) dated 10.04.2024.
10. In the light of the Annexure R-1(A) and R-1(B), the mutual transfer could not be proceeded with. Consequently the 5 th respondent issued Annexure R-1(C) Office Order dated 17.04.2024, by which the transfer of the 6th respondent was cancelled and he was repatriated back to Trivandrum Division.
11. It is pertinent to note that the O.A was filed on 22.04.2024. Much prior to that, on 10.04.2024, the 6 th respondent by Annexure R-1(B) had informed that he was not willing to join the Madurai Division in CCTC in 7 O.A No. 180/00258/2024 level-03. Annexure R-1 (A) supplements this. It was thereafter, R-1(C) dated 17.04.2024, the inter divisional mutual transfer was cancelled. Few days thereafter, the applicant filed this O.A.
12. It seems that the 6th respondent was informed that he may have to join Level -3 at the Madurai Division instead of Level-6. This triggered Annexure R-1(B) letter, by which he resiled from the inter divisional mutual transfer. This resulted in Annexure R-1(c) being issued. There is considerable force in the contention of the learned SCGSC that Annexure A-1 was only an inter divisional communication. It seems that factual mistakes regarding the promotion of the applicant was found out by the Trivandrum Division when her records were sent to the Divisional Office. The crucial question that arises is whether the applicant had taken independent charge in the TE cadre after the formation of CCTC. To substantiate this, the learned SCGSC invited my attention to Annexures A-6 and A-7.
13. Annexure A-6 is RBE No. 28/2018 of the Ministry of Railways dated 22.02.2018, with regard to revision in cadre structure and staffing pattern 8 O.A No. 180/00258/2024 due to merger of the three categories of posts in commercial department of Indian Railways, namely, Ticket Checking (TC) Commercial Clerk (CC) and Enquiry cum Reservation Clerk (ECRC). Clause 2.1 dealt with one of the modalities adopted while switching over to the unified cadre structure mentioned in the accompanying Annexure. Clause 2.1 reads as follows:
"2.1. Merger of the three categories will follow a graded approach. In first phase, the Ticket Checking category as a whole, with all its existing incumbents, will continue as a separate category with its existing cadre structure and staffing pattern, while the existing staff working in the categories of CC and ECRCs may be merged. The merged categories of CC and ECRC will accordingly have a four tier structure of posts and functional designation, as below."
14. Referring to the said clause, the learned Counsel for the applicant pointed out that, as on 22.02.2018, the Ticket Checking Category remained as a separate category and was not merged to constitute a unified category of Commercial and Ticketing Staff. Clause 2.2 of said order referred to the 2nd phase of merger. It reads as follows:-
"2.2. In the second phase of the merger, all future recruitments to the relevant category(ies) will be in the unified cadre structure merging Ticket Checking category also with the cadre of CC & ECRC. The final unified cadre structure with designation of posts, staffing pattern and norms for appointment will be as detailed in accompanying Annexure."
15. Annexure A-7 is the RBE No. 59/2019 dated 05.04.2019. It was issued in continuation of Annexure A-6 RBE No. 28/2018. It discloses that 9 O.A No. 180/00258/2024 pursuant to the RBE No. 28/2018, several cases were laid before the various Benches of this Tribunal, on the issue of integration. Accordingly, the instructions issued in RBE No. 28/2018 was reviewed in consultation with the Staff Federations and revised methodology of implementing it was worked out and referred in Annexure 'A' attached to Annexure A-7. Clause
(i) of it provided that existing cadres as on 22.02.2018 of Commercial Clerk and ECRC categories would continue to be in separate seniority groups as per pre-22.02.2018 position. Clause (vi) provided that as regards the existing employees, instead of keeping only TC category separate and merging seniority of CC and ECRCs; it was recommended that all three seniority groups of TC, CC and ECRC may be maintained separately for existing employees. Merger into a common seniority and common functionalities will take place for future DR.
16. Relying on Annexures A-6 and A-7, the learned Counsel for the applicant contended that Clause 2.1 of Annexure A-6 clearly establishes that the merger of TC category with other two categories was postponed till the 2nd phase of merger. By Annexure A-7, it was clarified that existing cadres as on the date of Annexure R-6, Commercial Clerks and ECRC categories 10 O.A No. 180/00258/2024 would continue to be in separate groups as per the pre 22.02.2018 position. Accordingly, by Clause (vi) of Annexure A-7, it was provided that as regards existing employees, instead of keeping only the TC category separate and merging seniority of CC and ECRCs; it was recommended that all three seniority groups TC, CC and ECRC would be maintained separately for existing employees. To that extent, the averment in Annexure A-1 that the applicant had to be absorbed in CC TC cadre only instead of TE cadre with effect from the date of taking independent charge was factually incorrect, it was contended.
17. Per contra, the learned SCGSC invited my attention specifically to Clause 2.1, which stated that in the "1st phase, the Ticket Checking category as a whole, with all its existing incumbents (emphasis supplied) will continue as a separate category with its existing cadre structure and staffing pattern,.....". It was pointed out that only those of "existing incumbents", as on the date of Annexure A-6 (namely, 22.02.2018) alone were to continue as a separate category. Even according to the case of the applicant, she was promoted as Ticket Examiner by order dated 02.01.2019 and joined 03.01.2019. It was clarified that the Ticket Checking category as 11 O.A No. 180/00258/2024 a whole, with its "existing incumbents" as on 22.02.2018 alone remained separate. Since the applicant had not joined the said category on the date of Annexure A-6, she would not fall within the terms "with all its existing incumbents". Since she joined after the date of Annexure A-6, and joined thereafter on 03.01.2019 alone, and before Annexure A-7 dated 05.04.2019, she would fall in the combined cadre only, it was contended. Prima facie, it appears that, on promotion, she would have been absorbed in CCTC cadre only instead of TE cadre with effect from 03.01.2019 (though wrongly mentioned as 05.09.2019 in Annexure A-1). Consequently, the stand taken by the respondents, Thiruvananthapuram Division in Annexure A-1 that on taking independent charge in TE cadre, she ought to have been absorbed in CCTC cadre prima facie appears to be correct. However, it is made clear that the contention regarding the level to which Muthukumar ought to have been accommodated and whether the applicant had to be absorbed in CCTC has been considered incidentally, since such a contention was advanced in the reply statement and arguments were advanced by both sides. Hence, though the crucial issue is whether the steps taken for cancellation of mutual transfer by the Railway is justified or not, incidental point has been dealt with and answered on the basis of available records and shall not deemed as 12 O.A No. 180/00258/2024 final determination of the issue.
18. In the light of the above, Muthukumar withdrew from his option and was repatriated by Annexure R-1(C). These steps happened prior to the filing of the O.A. Hence, the inter divisional transfer could not be proceeded with. Though Annexure A-1 is only an inter divisional communication, the inter divisional mutual transfer did not take place though Annexure A-3 and A-4 orders were issued. However, since R-6 has been repatriated, the inter divisional mutual transfer cannot take effect. Hence, I find no reason to grant any relief to the applicant.
19. Hence it is held that the applicant is not entitled to the relief as sought. The Original Application fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(Dated, 4th September, 2024) JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS JUDICIAL MEMBER ax 13 O.A No. 180/00258/2024 O.A No. 258/2024 List of Applicant's Annexures Annexure A-1- A true copy of the order bearing F. No. 111252 dated 02.04.2024, issued by the 5th respondent.
Annexure A-2- A true copy of the order bearing No. 38/2018/III/TEs dated 02.01.2019, issued from the office of the 3 rd respondent. Annexure A-3- A true copy of the office order bearing No. 06/2024/ CTTI/TTI dated 15.03.2024, issued by the 5th respondent. Annexure A-4- A true copy of the order No. U/P.676/III/IDMT/TTI dated 19.03.2024, issued on behalf of the 3rd respondent. Annexure A-5- A true copy of the office order No. 11/2024/TTI/ KS/IDMT dated 07.03.2024, issued by the 3rd respondent. Annexure A-6- A true copy of the Railway Board RBE No. 28/2018 dated 22.02.2018.
Annexure A-7- A true copy of the Railway Board order bearing RBE No. 59/2019 dated 05.04.2019.
List of Respondents' Annexures Annexure R1(A)- True copy of the letter No. U/P.676/III/IDMT dated 10.04.2024 of the Divisional Personnel Officer, Madurai Division. Annexure R1(B)- True copy of the letter dated 10.04.2024 of the 6 th respondent.
Annexure R1(C)- True copy of the Office Order No. 06/2024/CTTI/TTI dated 17.04.2024 issued by the 5th respondent.
Annexure R1(D)- True copy of the joining report of the 6 th respondent dated 25.04.2024.
******