Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Akhilesh Kumar vs M/O Railways on 13 February, 2019
SEAN IN THE CENTRAL TRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH HYDERABAD DAZ EO T/AS Dated: T3.42.2019 Beiween Akhilesh Kumar, S/o. Bharat Prasad. arg, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Electric Slenal Maintainer-], Ovo. Sr. Section Engineer, Jalna, Nanded Division, South Central Ralway, Maharashtra. Applicant AN D 1. Union of India rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railw BYE, Secunderabad, 2. The Chief Operating Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. 3. The Chief Personne! Officer, South Central Railways, Secunderabad, 4. The Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railways, Nanded Division, Nanded. Respondents Counsel for the applicant : Dr. A. Raghu Kamar Counsel forthe respondents + Mr. S.M. Patnaik, SC for Riys CORAM: Hon'hle Mr. Justice R. Rantha Rae, Member (2) Hon'ble Mr. BV. Sudhakar, Meniber (4) 4 N Pi, Ego ORAL ORDER
{Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Rantha Rao, Member (J)] Heard Dr. A. Raghukumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.ML Patnaik, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The applicant is working as Electric Signal Maintainer GrJ at Jaina Railway Station in Nanded Division. He applied for inter-zonal transfer to Allahabad Division in North Central Railway. His application was forwarded to the General Manager, North Central Railway on 09.05.2013 and the North Central Railway accepted his request and agreed fo take him to their Division on inter-zonal transfer vide proceedings dated 11.10.2017. There are several other enmpployees like the applicant in the present CA, Some inter-zonal transfers were given effect to and some were not. Agerieved by the same, some of the employees whose requests for inte sonal transfers were considered but were not reHeved, approached the Tribunal by filing OLA. Nos/O20/258 to 262, 272, 390 to 392, 444 to 448, SS, 560, PO8O, TOS) & 1129 to LIS2/201S. The Tribunal disposed of the O.As on merits by a commen order dated 214.2016 and directed the respondent Raihways to relieve the applicants therein within the tome prescribed in the said order, Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed Wrt Petition No.31Sd4/ 2016 & batch. The Writ Petitions were dismissad by the Division Bench of the Hon"ble High Court by order dated 31.10.2017 confirming the order passed by the Tribunal and directed the + Ralway administration to effect the inter-zonal transfers in respect of the respondents therein by 28.20.2018 by relieving them to enable Y # in their transferred ple @ respondents in the Wrrt Petition, the Railway Recrultment Board was further directed to complete the process of recruitment by 31.1. 2018
3. The applicant in the Instant O.A approached the Tribunal praying for the same relief His grievance is that even though more than one year has elapsed, his inter-zonal transfer was not given effect to and he was not relieved from his present place to enable him to join in the transferred pisee.
4. The respandents contended as follows:
The appheations of the employees are registered basing on zonal priority. A decision was made to relieve the candidates only after the position is improved smee Electric Signal Maintainer post is a sensitive safety category directhy connected with train operations. They refuted the & fey ~ Ps contentions of the applicant that the accommodate him. According to the respondents, the no objection Ie en Es ¢ vonditional and us validity periad is already over. [tis further contended by the respondents that the applicant has no right for inter-zonal transfer and in the exigencies of service, his request for inter-zonal transfer can be rejected, According to the respondents, the applicant, has no claim as perspective right for transfer to another Raibvay or another establishment and, therefore, according to the respondents, itis net mandatory on their part to relieve the applicant, iD Mextly, it is submitted that the Railway Recruitment Board had supplied certain number of papers af Electric Signal Maintainers but some of tat them had not joined the pol fore, ation is on hand to convince the Railway Recruitment Board fo sofie more RRB papers. It is submitted that while appreciating the grievance of the applicant' employees, the respondents are bound to look after the safety of the travelling public rather than giving preference to individual needs. Drawing a distinction between Telecorn Maintainers category and Electric Signal Maintainer category, it is stated that Telecom Maintainers are of vital safety category where they have to work in the running train for certain distance whereas Electric Signal Maintainer warks in the station attending operational duties. The pay levels are also said to be different and, therefore, according to the respondents, both categories eannot be compared with each other. In Electric Signal Maintainer's case, ihe version of the respondents seems to be that the Hon'ble High Court had rected the Ralway Reeruliment Board to supply papers to Railway administration and the dictum laid down will net be applicable in the case of Electrical Signal Maintainers.
ii) According te the respondents, relieving the applicant who is a Electric Signal Maintainer would cause operational hazards and endanger the safety of general public, iv} Lastly, Ho is subnitted that ensuring safety is the parametot function £ af Indian Rathways which cannot be compromised. Therefore, relieving of Electric Signal Maintainers will jeopardize the travelling public.
Contending as above, the respondents sought to dismiss the OLA. S, The main contention of the respondent Railways appears to be that if @ applicant, who is a Eleetric Signal Maintaimer, is relieved, the safety of x 4 : an xk es general public would be in jeore & therefore, they prayed not to grant any direction ta relieve the Electric Signal Maintainers. &, Before proceeding to dispose af this OLA, the main grounds on which the Division Bench of the Hon*bie High Cott dismissed the WHt Petitions are required ta be noticed, In the earlier O.A.s against which Writ Petitions were Aled, the respondent Railways put forth the same contentions which are now taker in the instant Q.A. As the applicant in the present case and the applicants In those cases alse contended that the delay in relieving them would jeopardize their career interest in the Railways to which they have sought transfer. In this context, & requires to be noticed that though the Railways have taken a decision to effect inter-zona!l transfers basing an a priority [ist and in a fime bound manner, the cases af some famiors were considered ignoring the requests of seniors. This has been made out from the pleadings of both the parties and there is no dispute about the said fact and the said issue needs no illustration. The Division Bench of the Hor'ble High Court repelled the contention of the respondent Railways that the applicants have no right for transfer te another Railway or another establishment. The Division Bench made an observation that there is always a ground for not relieving the respondents therein even after three years of the transfer arders pees The findings recorded by the Drision Bench of the High Court in para 9 & 10 are as follows:
8
"9, In the cases on hand, it is not the case of the Administration that the requests of the respondents for "onal transfer were liable te be rejected. Their requests were already accepted. The respondents did Hot go to the Tribunal seeking a posiive mandamus directing the Railway Administration to transfer the sm fram one zone to another. If they were seeking a transfer through Court order, the Adiministration may be entitled to put Rule 226 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code.
&
10. But ance their' Sts" £4 Z raisfers have been accepted, the s sede If we have a look at ihe time line of events, it : could be seer) that by the Circular dated 211.2008, the Administration was directed to draw a time-bound programme. Exactly a period of [2 years has now passed from the date of the said Circular. No time-
bound programme bas been chalked out by the Adiministration. The Circular alsa mandates that xistence of vacancies ne cee net deter the implemen tation of the orders of transier. Therefore, the Tribunal was night in aliossing the applications of the comesting respondents Therefore, the same contentions which are advanced in the present ged before the Hon'ble High Ceset. The ste = OA by the respondents, were ur Hon'ble High Court, considering all the facts and circumstances, passed the a above mentioned order.
ed The learned counsel! appearing for the applicant contended that if the inter-zonal transfer is not given effect and the applicant is not relleved, career orospects of the applicant, education of his children and other family issues will be adversely affected. He also brought te aur netice the fact that the applicant agreed to take up the bottorn most seniority. Therefore, any further delay in effecting the inter-zonal transfer will jeopardise his prospects S On the other hand, fearned Standing Counsel appearing for ihe respondents contended that if the applicant is directed to be rellewed, it would endanger public safety and cause a lot of trouble for the Railway administration. The same contenflon in respect of the Electric Signal Maintainers was advanced before the Hon'ble High Court. But the Hen"ble High Court did not aceept the same. The inter-zonal transfers of several cadres have been accepted by the respondent Railways and, therefore, we aH ty 7 ; oy think Ho not proper to draw on between various categories of employees and the Railway Ads niniste ation is under duty to give effect to the sand mnter-zonal transfer by relieving the applicant. Q, Shri S.M. Patnaik, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent Railways contended that the applicant waited for the decision af the Hon"ble High Court in the aforementioned Writ Petitions and filed th % present OA. As the applicant is nota party to the said O.As, he has not approached the Tribunal at appreapriate time for redressal of his grievance, his original applications ought not to have been admitted by the Tribunal on account of the bar of imitation which is set oat a/S 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. According to the learned counsel, after the decision for mfer- zonal transfers was taken, the applicant ought fo have approached the Tribunal within the period preseribed wS 21 of the Tribunals Act. The learned Standing counsel also relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Cort in $8. Balu & Another vs State of Kerala & Others dated [13.1.2009 wherein the Supreme Court in para 18 of the judgement held as follows:
*t8. It is also well settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity'. Government Order was issued on 15.1. 2002, Appellants did not file any writ application questioning the Jegality and validity thereof Only after the writ t petitions filed by others were allowed and State of Kerala preferred an appeal there against, they inmpleaded themseive 8S as party respondents. It is now a utte law that where the wri petitioner appreaches the High Court afer a long delay, reliefs prayed for ray be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to ihe other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgement. [t is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Conunission to appoint the appellants at this stage.
InN New Delhi Municipa ingh and Ors, (2007) 9 SCC 378 "{G. 'Phere is another aspect of the matter which cant be lost sight of. The respondents herein filed a writ petihon after 17 years, They did not agitate their grievances for a lone time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earhest possible opportunity. They did not implead themselves as partles even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. [is net their vase that after P982, thase employees wha were employed or who were recruited afler the cut-off date have been granted the said scale af pay. After such a long time, therefore, the writ petitions could not have been entertaimed even if they are similarly sHuated. It is tmte that the discretionary jurisdiction may nat be exervised in favour of those who approach the court after a long tone. Delay and lac hes 3 are relevant facts for exercise of equitable jurisdiction,"
1g, The judgement relied on by the learned Standing Counsel, in cur pots view, is not applicable to the facts of the present case, The said decision relates fo appointment and the Supreme Court with reference to the facts of the cage took a view that the applicants only after knowing about the decision rendered by the High Court in favour of seme other candidates approached the High Court and, therefore, they are not entitled for the reef which was given to the apphoants before the High Court. The fet situation in the case before the Supreme Court and in the present OA is distinguishable. In the case befare the Supreme Court, the appellants therein sought a smandamus in respect of their right to appointment. In the present Q.A, the request of the applicant for his inter-zonal transfer was already considered by the Railway administration and he approached the Tribunal as the same was not given he inter-zonal transfer of the applicant the Railway *, See.
SOR Raresn effect to even after were sought to be given effect to by employes basing on priority lst, at no point af and other achministration in atime bound manner se was rejected of his request for inter- be done im a time pot Sekt time the applicant in the instant zonal transier, Since as per the policy of Railways, it has to £ bound manner, the applicant waited for implementation and as it was not done e approached the Tribunal, Therefore, we are not n that the relief praved for by the applicant in inclined ta aecept the contentia S21 of the Administratiy within a reasonable time, he the present GA. is barred by limitation e Tribunals Act heather the decision of the Division Bench of Ld. As regards the question whe the Hon*ble High Court in the above Writ Petition applies to the applicant in the present case, we are of yiow that tt applies to the Railways as well as the g whase requesis for inter-zonal transiers were approved Railway employee ease from their resp & places. Ware sect and have been waiting for their rele anding Counsel for the Rabways in iaok note of the statement of the learned Sta at 2 We sok ne < Respondents about the meonvenience that would be caused to the | relieving the applicant immediately he same time, we are > the applicant the event of consciaus of the fact that the finalization of the RRO SIAL cannot be put aon held by indefinitely and the Railway | transfers within a reasonable time. ais rdminisiration has to effect inter-rona : the [yvision Benel
13. After rendering the aforementioned judgement by Respondent Railways ought to have taken "the Hon'ble Hig sts for inter-zomal transfers are 1 employees whose reques in , [ete ee steps io relieve t epied, But thas Railway a Me sy oy ry "5 so by the Hon'ble high Court in the above e baich of Writ Petitions. ssion, we are oF the view that a direction ven te the respondent Railways to relieve the applicant So as requiyes him to foin in his transferred place pursuant to his inter-zonal Co to enable transfer, Therefore. the respondents are directs ed to take steps to relieve the applicant to his transferred place within a periad of s ix months from the date of receipt of this order.
tS. The OLA is allowed to the eatent indicated above. There shall be no NOOR ONS