Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Sandip Maity vs Eastern Railway on 19 September, 2019
1 oa/1624/2014
r
v
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
O.A/350/1624/2014 Date of Order- 19.09.2019
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Baneijee, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Dr. (Ms.) Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member
Sandip Maity @ Maiti, son of Swapan Maity, aged about 37
years, residing at 55, Kshetra Moitra Lane, Salkia, Howrah
- 711106, worked as a Parcel Porter under Chief Parcel
Luggage Inspector, Howrah, Eastern Railway.
-Applicant.
Versus
1. Union of Indian ^ervice through the General Manager
Eastern^/RallVa^ ftbad, Fairly Place, Kolkata
™#' ^rr?N. ®\
2. The-ChairilOTiARailw^^oard^RailBhaban, New Delhi,
3. ;^he Eas^ri| Railway, 17. N.S.
I
stern Railway, 103,
\ walighat Sfeetf KJlkhtaWOOOO 1.
5\ The Eastern ^Railway
^owr^fh Division, Howr&''P^^Llli01.
6. ^e^efiiq^^msiori^.^ommerjpial Manager, Eastern
% \ s
Rail^ay^'Howrah Division,-Howrah Pin 711101.
7. The Senior Divrsibnal^^P^rsonnel Manager, Eastern
Railway HowraK'Division, Howrah Pin 711101.
8. The Assistant .Personnel Officer (2), Eastern Railway
Howrah Division, Howrah Pin 711101.
--Respondents
For The Applicant(s): Mr. B. Chatterjee, counsel
For The Respondent(s): Mr. S. K. Das, counsel
ORDER (ORAL)
Per- Ms. Bidisha Baneriee. Member (J):
Heard Id. counsel for both sides.
2. At hearing, Id. counsel for the applicant submitted that this O.A has been preferred to challenge the memo dated 31.01.2011, 12.09.2011 and 17.07.2012 issued by the Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway, Howrah 2 oa/1624/2014 v ^ and would pray that the matter be disposed of in terms of the order dated 13.12.2018 passed by this Tribunal in O.A 350/1017/2015, which reads as under' t "In a sequel to an earlier O.A. being O.A.No. 671/2013 disposed of on *5 L ' 14.11.2014, this O.A. has been preferred to challenge the memo dated 12.01.2014 > issued by Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway, Howrah in purported compliance of the directions of this Tribunal in O.A.No. 671/ 2013.
2. We heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the materials on record.
3. O.A. 671/2013 was disposed of with the following orders:
Heard Ld. Counsel for both sides.
2. The Ld. Counsel for the respondents fairly concedes that the applicants who have been found:unfit in Cl category and have not been absorbed as ParceLPortedtaean be^eonsidered against alternative posts and adjustedifgainst other avenues inAyiew of the fact that similarly circumstariCeiT P arcdPorters have bfemadjusted as Bedding Porters etc. in .the feilway^in^cdnfill^pion of \heippbayer for absorption where medrcalVitnessHess^r thanJuptai^ory is^quired.
. •' #Os\\ I //y>% Vi \
3. 4^ In suGh^yi^^dfc^'^mattefjjtheiO.A. iOisppsed of with a direction jupTSif the cJncem^^^^SfieS-sau&rity to^ consider the case of the i applicants Sgainst^w^lSb^acancfes of Sorters in other categories Uoihhiensurlie^hh^lieifYmedi^al^tness less thkn Cl category which Uftafli make tlfem^eligihli tpV^c|&idered h^acliordance with law and •pass appropriatiPbrcler vJitfkmftifee-months fromlthe date of receipt of a "
4. \ The4^A. is>accordingLyf^spdse^6f. No order as to costs."
^ V / /
\ •'L.
A
It appears from a bafe^perusal of the»ofder, since the Respondents Counsel appearing in the said matter had fairly conceded that the applicants of the said O.A., Joyhind Prasad & others, who have been found unfit in C-I category and were not absorbed as Parcel Porters can be considered against alternative post and adjusted against other avenues as similarly circumstanced Parcel Porters have been adjusted at Bedding Porters etc, this Tribunal had issued mandatory direction upon the Respondents to consider the present applicants against available vacancy of Porters in other categories commensurate with their medical fitness of less than C-I category, which would make them eligible for such post. But, with their memo dated 12.01.2014, Sr.'DCM in an attempt to sit over the directions of this Tribunal and thereby to scuttle the power of judiciary has opined as under:
"Since for the absorption as Parcel Porters the requirement was for fitness in medical category C-l and the petitioners in the present case were not found fit in medical category C-l. The Railway Administration being duty bound to implement the Hon'ble APEX Courts' orders, it was 3 oa/1624/2014 not possible to provide employment as parcel porters, to the petitioners in WP(C) no. 433 ofl998, WP(C) no. 121 of 2000 WP(C) 640 of 2007.
Since the Hon'ble APEX Court's order are in the following unambiguous terms in WP(C) 433 of 1998, para-34 "the units of railway administration are not required to absorb on permanent basis such the contractor labour railway parcel porters who are found medically unfit/ unsuitable for such employment" which has again been reiterated in Para 2.4 of the order of Hon'ble Court in WP(C) 640 of 2007, considering the present petitioners for employment, despite their medically unfit in C-l category would tantamount to a violation of the Hon'ble Court's order.
In the above background, railway administration has no option to consider the case of the present applicants for employment, in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order which have been made the basis by the applicants seeking employment in terms of present OA filled before the Ld. Tribunal.
Thus the case is disposed off as per order of Central Administrative Tribunal dtd. 14.11.14 passed in OAno.671 of2013."
Bare perusal of the decision referred to by the Respondents would show that the ^ f' Hon'ble Apex Court in A.I. ,Rahway PhfcehahdaGodds Porters' Union Vs.-UOI & \^ >k ^ Ors. [2003 (11) SCC 59,0-^at Para^^oTtheijudgemenfphadWccinctly held as under:
/ 'ThUal^OipdbnpPthe
• jr\\ / eligible i \
petitioner's in the writ petitions ^)ngjegula|ra(l^^^^^^i>yfcailw^^JWiistration as Railway |P^^1 Portgrsi*does3^®ite&Raifway A®imstration from utilizing Uh^ir servic^^fof^ln^Sifefffanualfwork for tl?e Railways depending i us ntSk^y/ii wcx# z 1 IQ \:Zf ^I Therefore, it w4s me boundemdmyMthe Respondents to explore other-avenues to I k adjust the said Parcel^P^ers^against appropriate"posts dep4nding upon its needs.
% \ V/V , \\x/ / Instead of following\hd^saia^direGtion^of.^thb' Hon^le Apex Court, the Sr. \ ^ / / Divisional Commercial^ Manager ■ ih^his' own-'wisdom, without consulting the vX-.
officers in higher form, has rejected the...cas e^5r the present applicants, who have been found unfit for absorption as Parcel Porter but fit for various other jobs with comparatively lower fitness level, a list whereof runs thus:
"Category C-2 (H Commercial:-
1. Commercial Superintendent
2. Chief Cash Witness / Cash Witness
3. Clock Inspector / Winder
4. Warden and Instructor of Training Schools
5. Lady Inspector (Refreshment Rooms)
6. Superintendent (Lost Property Office)
7. Inspector of Dispatches
8. Office clerk / enquiry clerk
9. Packer/Sorter
10. Polisher
11. Syrup Maker
12. filler
13. Checker.
14. Sales man/ Sales attendant
15.- Water-men/ Sweeper
4 oa/1624/2014
16. Chief Catering Inspector / Catering Inspector
17. Weighment Inspector
18. Masalchi /Bearer
19. Sail Maker (Otherwise known as Tarpaulin-repairer) 121 Engineering
1. Office Clerk
2. Jamadar peon / Daftary / peon/Farash
3. File Lifter/Book Binder
4. Sweeper / Bhisly
5. Office chowkidar / Office Waterman / waterwoman
6. Material Checker (Signal Workshops)
7. Assistant Watch and Ward Inspector
8. Workshop Clerk
9. Workshop Time-keeper
10. Office Draftsmen
11. Khalasi other than Shop Khalasi
12. Rest House caretaker XXX XXX XXX (41 Operating
1. Loco Instructor
2. Signaler (except [ those shown in class A-2)
3. Office cherk
4. All other Offico staff not mentionedvelsewhere rj ■tf •
5. Waterman '
6. Running Room Staff 'i 1 ..........
7. Box Porter / Call/Ivlan^Jlessengd^^howkidal
8. Bhishly (not engagSd jn watering^sroc]|pissen|^OT^goods)
9. Bar setter / Telephone Attentflnt^ '* * y ^
10. Traveling Purter.'Muggagepforter 11.1.C. Van Porter 4tUT9
12. Waiting Room Staff fL*
13. Safaiwala/ Safaiwali / Dhohy,
14. Saloon AtteridarttJ ^
15. Punkha Khal%i
16. Washout Jamadar
17. Phone Clerk / .? A \y
18. Telegraph Peon \ s \ •I-, \ A XXX XXX XXX •H Sn (61 Stores
1. Depot Material Supdt. I, II & III
2. Time-keeper
3. Messenger
4. Water man / Khalasi / Safaiwala / Safaiwali
5. Daftry / Jamadar peon xxx xxx" xxx The above list is extracted from an Advance Correction Slip to para 510 of IRMM, 2000 as contained in Annexure-A/9 to the O.A.
4. Having failed to consider the matter properly in terms of the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court and order passed by this Tribunal, which was a consent order, the said officer, being the Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway, Howrah, has misdirected himself and erroneously rejected the case of the present applicants. Accordingly, the memo dated 12.01.2014, as contained in Annexure-A/14 to the O.A., is quashed. Matter is remanded back to the authorities 5 03/1624/2014 r for appropriate direction in accordance with the decision extracted (supra) and the direction of this Tribunal in the earlier round. Let an appropriate order be issued within two months.
5. O.A. is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs."
3. Ld. counsel for the respondents agrees that the present OA can be disposed of in the same way as O.A 350/1017/15, quoted supra.
4. Accordingly, the impugned memoranda dated 31.01.2011, 12.09.2011 and 17.07.2012 issued by the Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway, Howrah are quashed. Matter is remanded back to the authorities for appropriate direction in accordancefwith the. decision extracted (supra).
- cf//. ^V 'X Let an appropriate order^e^ssue^^tMn^two months'^o costs.
% >fT]
& 1 •• j
(Nandita Chatterffee) if
I (Bidisha Banerjee)
• ^
Member (A) 5S W rM^mber (J)
]
•!
ii u j#?
^ I ■
i
i
\ / $
ss
's
s\
<4 v-..
'V'■Vr, >'4y
•A
J-
\
% V.
''v • .J-*'
':r-. .tP-
I
i'
i
r
ji
i