Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Marymol Manattu W/O Reji Mathew vs Union Of India Represented By on 26 November, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH O.A. NO. 396/2009 This the 26th day of November, 2009. C O R A M: HON'BLE MR. GEORGE PARACKEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Marymol Manattu W/o Reji Mathew Station Master Gr.III,Palghat Division (Under Training as Traffic Apprentice) permanent Address: Bhagavathiparambil House Kanakkari PO, Kottayam District. 686 632 ... Applicant By Advocate Mr. T.C.Govindaswamy Vs. 1 Union of India represented by the General Manager,Southern Railway Headquarters Office, Park Town PO Chennai-3 2 The Chief Personnel Officer Southern railway, Hqrs Office Park Town PO Chennai-3 3 The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer Southern Railway ,Palghat Division Palghat 4 The Senior Divisional Operations Manager Southern Railway, Palghat Division Palghat 5 The Divisional Personnel Officer Southern Railway Salem Division Salem. ...Respondents By Advocate Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC O R D E R
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant is challenging Annexure A-10 refusal of the respondents to provide her lien in the Palghat Division at par with other staff of Palghat Division and posting in Palghat Dn.
2 The applicant entered Railway service as an Assistant Station Master in the Palghat Division, Southern Railway on 16.2.1998. She was further promoted as Station Master Gr.III in August, 2003 and was posted at Magnesite Junction near Salem. While working there, she registered her request for transfer to Palghat Junction/Palghat Town in 2004. While so, applications were invited from eligible graduates to fill up 10% LDCE quota vacancies of the post of Traffic Apprentice. The applicant applied and appeared in the examination secured first rank with 83% marks (A-3). She completed two years training topping the list with 86% marks. (A-4). Meanwhile, the new Salem Division was notified w.e.f. 1.11.2007. The applicant having lien in the Palghat Division, opted to be retained in the Palghat Division. Having come to know that her lien has not been maintained in the Palghat Division, she submitted representations (A-7 and A-8). Since there was no response, she filed this O.A. During the pendency of the O.A. the respondents disposed of the representations (Annexure A-10). Aggrieved, she amended the O.A. to quash Annexure A-10 and for a declaration that she is entitled to be considered for appointment as Station Master Grade-II in the Palghat Division against 10% LDCE quota for which she was selected and undergone training. The main grounds urged are that the respondents ought to have maintained her lien in the Palghat Division, she was selected against the 10% quota vacancies of the Palghat Division, the persons who had undergone training were provided with lien as they were working within the territorial jurisdiction of Palghat Division at the material time, the respondents were bound to grant her an option to choose her Division, as she was selected for higher grade of Rs 5500-9000 she cancelled her request for transfer to Palghat a Division coupled with her family problems consisting of two kids and husband who is employed near Kottayam.
3. The respondents in their reply statement admitted the service of the applicant as stated in the O.A. They contended that the cadres of Palghat and Salem Divisions were closed w.e.f. 31.5.2008 as per letter No.P(R)676/Salem Division/Formation dated 3.3.08, the lien of SMs of Salem Division registered for transfer to Palghat Division on the date of closure of the cadre of Palghat and Salem Divisions has been maintained in that Division The employees working in different stations/depots which is in the jurisdiction of Palghat and Salem divisions were deemed to belong to Palghat and Salem divisions respectively by virtue of their place of working. The applicant working as SM is in the jurisdiction of Salem Division. As the applicant's request to Palghat Division has been cancelled consequent on her selection as Traffic Apprentice her name does not find place in the Salem Division. As per this Tribunal's order in O.A.413/08 dated 14.10.2008 9 SMs of Salem Division are to be posted in Salem Division and the applicant is one among the said 9 SMs undergoing training.
4. The applicant in her rejoinder submitted that she belonged to the erstwhile Palghat Division and when the new Salem Division was formed the employees should have been given an option either to remain in Palghat Division or in the newly formed Salem Division.. She was never given an option to go out of Salem Division. She further submitted that before her training and during the training till 2009 she continued to be part of Palghat Division.
5. The applicant moved M.A.895/2009 to refrain the respondents from relieving her to Salem Division pending final disposal of the O.A.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. The applicant challenges Annexure A-10 order dated 20.7.2009 rejecting her representation for posting at PGT and PGTN in Palghat Division. There is no dispute that the applicant was working as SM Grade-III in the Palghat Division posted at Magnesite Junction near Salem Junction. While so, she registered her name for transfer to PGT and PGTN in 2004. In the meantime she volunteered for LDCE for recruitment to the post of Traffic Apprentice against 10% quota. While she was undergoing training, the Salem Division was formed. The applicant contended that as she had expressed her willingness to be retained in Palghat Division by registering her request for transfer to Palghat in terms of A-6 orders, she was entitled to be posted in Palghat Division after completion of the training. Her rights arising out of the lien should have been continued to be maintained in the PGT Division itself. The stand of the respondents is that pursuant to the selection to the post of Traffic Apprentice and subsequent training, her request for transfer to PGT and PGTN was cancelled as per the procedure followed as continuance of her registration in SM Grade-III was meaningless after the commencement of training. Consequent on implementation of the VI CPC the two grades of SMs i.e. SM-III and SM-II were merged into one grade having the same grade pay. The cadres of Palghat and Salem Divisions were closed w.e.f. 31.5.2008, the lien of SMs registered for transfer to Palghat Division on the date of closure of the cadre of both the Divisions has been maintained. As the training of the applicant as Traffic Apprentice, a higher grade than SM-III, has started her request for transfer to Palghat was cancelled.
8. The applicant further contended that having stood first in the select list of of Traffic Apprentices, she is entitled to get option for posting at Palghat especially when Sl. Nos. 5, 10, 11 etc. who were working within the territorial jurisdiction of Palghat Division at the time of formation of Salem Division, were accommodated in Palghat Division.
9. Before the formation of Salem Division, all the employees were under the Palghat Division. When the Salem Division was formed the respondents took a decision that the field staff working in the territorial jurisdiction of the newly formed Division will be deemed to have automatically been transferred to Salem Division unless such of those staff opt out of SA Division and choose to go back to their parent division to be exercised in writing. The applicant has already registered her request for transfer to Palghat Division.
10. On formation of the Salem Division, Procedure order NO.1 on Establishment matters was issued by the APO, Palghat Division on 19.11.2007. The relevant portions are extracted below:
"1.60 Transfer of staff No staff will be transferred against his/her willingness on a permanent basis in line with the assurance given by Hon'ble MOSR 1.6.1 Field Staff The Field Staff presently working in the territorial jurisdiction of the proposed SA division will be deemed to have automatically been transferred to SA Division, unless such of those staff opt out of SA Division and choose to go back to their parent Division to be exercised in writing 1.7.0 Pending Transfer requests The transfer requests already registered are to be dealt with as under:
1.7.1 To go out of SA Division The priority in respect of staff of the erstwhile PGT/TLPJ/MDU Division will continue to be maintained at the relevant unit to which such request has been made and registered.
1.8.0 Cadres All the Cadres of the new Division will be kept open till 31.10.2008 or such other date as may be decided by the competent authority to facilitate inward and outward movement as per the options. The cadre will be closed on 31.10.2008. The seniority of staff within the grades of various cadres will be fixed taking into account the length of service in the relevant grade in respect of optees. For others, who joined on IRT/IDT at request, the seniority will be governed by relevant rules in this regard."
From the above it is clear that no staff will be transferred against their willingness. The applicant is not willing to be transferred to Salem Division. The priority of registration for transfer will continue to be maintained.
11. The applicant like every employee, had an option to opt out of SA Division to be exercised in writing. That opportunity was not exercised by the applicant because according to her she has already registered a request for transfer to Palghat in 2004 itself. The least the administration could have done is, to intimate the applicant when her request for transfer to Palghat Dn registered in 2004 was cancelled, to exercise an option, if necessary for Palghat Dn once again. Moreover, we feel that being No. 1 in the select list of Apprentice Trainees, the applicant has accrued a legal right for an option to choose the Division depending upon the availability of vacancy,especially in the context of her juniors in the select list being allotted Palghat Dn. itself. Consequent on recommendation of VI CPC, the two grades of Station Masters Grade -II and III are grouped into one grade pay w.e.f. 1.1.2006. If the request of the applicant for transfer to Palghat had not been cancelled, she should have got transfer to Palghat Division under Para 1.7.1 quoted above.
12. Based on the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the O.A. succeeds. Accordingly, we quash and set aside Annexure A-10 and declare that the applicant is entitled to be posted in Palghat Division after completion of the Traffic Apprentice training in preference to others in the select list.
13. The O.A. is allowed. No costs.
Dated the 26th November,2009.
K. NOORJEHAN GEORGE PARACKEN ADMINISTRATAIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER kmn