Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Sikandra Kumar vs M/O Railways on 7 June, 2019
1 OA 21/518/2017
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH: HYDERABAD
Original Application No.21/518/2017 & MA 704/2017
Date of Order: 07.06.2019
Between:
Sikandra Kumar, S/o. Ashok Kumar,
Aged 34 years, Occ: Loco Pilot (Goods),
O/o. The Chief Crew Controller,
South Central Railway, Kazipet Depot,
Kazipet R.S., Warangal Dt., Telangana State.
... Applicant
And
1. Union of India represented by
The Chairman, Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhavan, Railway Board, New Delhi.
2. The General Manager,
South Central Railway,
Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.
3. The General Manager (Personnel),
South Central Railway,
Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.
4. The Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel),
South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division,
Sanchalan Bhavan, Secunderabad.
5. The General Manager,
South East Central Railway,
Bilaspur, Chattisgarh State.
6. The Divisional Personnel Office,
South East Central Railway,
Nagpur Division, Kingsway, Nagpur - 440 001.
7. B. Srinivasulu Narasimham,
Occ: Chief Loco Inspector,
O/o. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer,
Chief Crew Controller Lobby,
Dogargarh R.S., Chattisgarh State.
... Respondents
2 OA 21/518/2017
Counsel for the Applicant ... Mr.K.R.K.V. Prasad
Counsel for the Respondents ... Mr. D. Madhava Reddy,
SC for Rlys
Mr. R. Mahanty for R-7
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Member (Admn.)
ORAL ORDER
{As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice L Narasimha Reddy, Chairman} The applicant is working as Loco Pilot (Goods) in the South Central Railway. He wanted to shift his residence to Nagpur due to family reasons. Keeping that in view, he made enquiries at Nagpur to find out a Loco Pilot working in the South East Central Railway (for short "SEC Railway") so that an application for mutual transfer can be made. The 7th respondent, a Loco Pilot in SEC Railway, agreed for such a course, and together with the applicant, they made a request to the Railways. Acting on the combined requests, the 3rd respondent-Railway administration issued an order dt. 16.03.2017 permitting the Inter- Railway mutual transfer and corresponding order was also issued by the 6th respondent on 04.05.2017. However, before the applicant could join at Nagpur, the 7th respondent is said to have made a representation on 08.5.2017 to the 6th Respondent-Railway administration stating that he has been selected as Chief Loco Inspector and in that view of the matter, he was not in a position to join at Secunderabad and accordingly, requested for cancellation of the order of mutual transfer.
3 OA 21/518/2017
2. This OA is filed by the applicant with a prayer to call for the records relating to the Memorandum dated 16.03.2017 and Office Order dt. 04.05.2017 and to declare the inaction of the respondents in not relieving him to join at Nagpur in terms of the order of mutual transfer, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and to direct the 4th respondent to relieve him by extending all consequential benefits.
3. The applicant contends that the order of mutual transfer emanated from the respondents 3 & 6 and there is no justification for them in not relieving him simply because the 7th respondent has been selected as Chief Loco Inspector.
4. The respondents 1 to 4 filed counter affidavit opposing the OA. It is stated that, on a request made by the applicant and the 7 th respondent, order of mutual transfer was passed, but, in view of the fact that the 7th respondent was selected as Chief Loco Inspector, the entire process became unworkable and the relief claimed by the applicant cannot be granted.
5. We heard Mr. K.R.K.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant; Mr. Srihari, learned advocate representing Mr. D. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Railways and Mr. R. Mahanty, learned counsel for 7th respondent.
4 OA 21/518/2017
6. The applicant made a sincere effort to get himself relieved from South Central Railway so that he can join the SEC Railway, at Nagpur. That, in fact, fructified with the cooperation on the part of the 7 th respondent. The process, naturally took time, the order of mutual transfer was passed by the 3rd respondent on 16.03.2017 and a corresponding order was issued by the 6th respondent on 04.05.2017. The record, however, discloses that the 7 th respondent was selected as Chief Loco Inspector vide orders dated 05.05.2017, almost at the time when the orders of mutual transfer were taking shape. He made a representation on 08.05.2017 and that, in turn, was forwarded by the Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (OP), SEC Railway, Nagpur to the 6th respondent on 11.05.2017. The result is that, the 7th respondent is not available for being taken on the rolls of the 3rd respondent Railways.
7. It is no doubt true that, the Railway Board has been issuing Circulars and proceedings directing that the orders of mutual transfer must be implemented at the earliest, to avoid complications. Reference in this context may be made to one such order dt. 15.09.2017. The fact, however, remains that even by the time the orders of mutual transfer were released for implementation, the 7th respondent was selected and appointed as Chief Loco Inspector. Once he has been promoted to a higher post, he cannot be compelled to remain in the same post, that too, for the sole purpose of joining a different Railway zone.
5 OA 21/518/2017
8. The applicant was, no doubt, put to hardship and it would be difficult for him to find another Loco Pilot from the SEC Railway, who agrees for mutual transfer. These, however, are vagaries of service and one cannot help. If there is any mechanism which can help the applicant to tide over the situation, he can certainly avail the same and there is no reason to believe that the administration would not extend its cooperation. For example, if it becomes possible or permissible, under law, for the applicant to join at Nagpur, on the same terms and conditions, as applicable to a mutual transfer, the respondents can consider the feasibility of extending the same and for that purpose, he has to make a representation duly referring to the relevant provisions of law or instances of similar nature, that have taken place earlier.
9. We, accordingly, dispose of the OA with the above observations. MA is treated as unnecessary, since the OA itself is disposed of and accordingly, the MA is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(B.V. SUDHAKAR ) (JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY)
MEMBER (ADMN.) CHAIRMAN
(Dictated in open court)
Dated, the 7th day of June, 2019
evr