Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
G Ramesh vs M/O Railways on 21 August, 2023
OA/179/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
HYDERABAD
OA/020/179/2016
Date of CAV on : 01.08.2023
Date of Pronouncement : 21.08.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Administrative Member
1. G. Ramesh, S/o. Ramakrishna Rao,
Aged about 42 years,
Occ: Junior Engineer (Signal),
O/o. The Senior Section Engineer,
South Central Railway,
Vijayawada Division, Nidadavolu.
2. V. Durga Prasad, S/o. Ramaswamy,
Aged about 40 years,
Occ: Junior Engineer (Signal),
O/o. The Senior Section Engineer,
South Central Railway,
Vijayawada Division, Vijayawada.
.... Applicants
(By Advocate : Sri KRKV. Prasad)
Vs.
1. Union of India rep. by
The General Manager,
South Central Railway,
Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.
2. The Chief Personnel Officer,
South Central Railway,
Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
South Central Railway,
Vijayawada Division, Vijayawada.
4. Syed Shameem, Occ: Senior Section,
Engineer (Construction),
O/o. The Deputy Chief Signal &
Telecommunication Engineer (Co-ordination),
South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.
Page 1 of 6
OA/179/2016
5. Pankaj Kumar Meena,
Occ: Senior Section Engineer (Signal),
O/o. Senior Deputy Chief Signal &
Telecommunication Engineer (Co-ordination),
South Central Railway, Secunderabad.
6. Ch. Yadagiri, Occ: Senior Section Engineer (Signal),
O/o. Senior Deputy Chief Signal &
Telecommunication Engineer (Co-ordination),
South Central Railway, Secunderabad.
7. K. Raveendra,
Occ: Senior Section Engineer (Signal),
O/o. Senior Deputy Chief Signal &
Telecommunication Engineer, (Co-ordination),
South Central Railway, Secunderabad.
8. D. Ramakrishna,
Occ: Senior Section Engineer (Signal),
O/o. Senior Deputy Chief Signal &
Telecommunication Engineer,
South Central Railway,
Vijayawada Division, Vijayawada.
9. J. Sudhakar, Occ: Senior Section Engineer (Signal),
O/o. Senior Deputy Chief Signal &
Telecommunication Engineer (Co-ordination),
South Central Railway, Secunderabad.
10. K. Madhusudana Rao,
Occ: Senior Section Engineer (Signal),
O/o. Senior Deputy Chief Signal &
Telecommunication Engineer,
South Central Railway,
Guntur Division, Guntur.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Sri M. Brahma Reddy, Sr. PC for CG)
----
Page 2 of 6
OA/179/2016
ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Administrative Member) The present O.A. is filed by the applicant challenging the action of the respondents in fixing his seniority wrongly resulting in denial of promotion to him on the ground that it is in violation of Paras 302 & 228 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol.I and sought a direction to the respondents to reckon his seniority based on the date of panel pertaining to the promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Signal) with consequential benefits including promotion to the post of Senior Section Engineer (Signal).
2(a) The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is promoted as Junior Engineer (Signal) by virtue of his qualifying in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). After completing the training meant for promotion to the said post, they joined the post in pursuance of the panel dated 11.12.2012. While so, the respondents prepared a consolidated seniority list of Junior Engineers (Signal) for ordering promotions to the next higher grade post of Senior Section Engineer in which, the applicants's names figured. The applicants submitted a representation bringing to the notice of the respondents that his seniority was wrongly fixed by taking his date of joining the working post of Junior Engineer instead of the date of promotion as he is a promote. However, before furnishing any reply to the applicant, the respondents published the impugned panel dated 5/6.11.2015 for promotion to the post of Senior Section Engineer, without enlisting the name of the applicant.
Page 3 of 6
OA/179/2016
(b) It is the contention of the applicant that the names of his juniors, who have been appointed as Junior Engineers against Direct Recruitment quota after the Junior Engineer's Panel dt.11.12.2012 in which the applicants' names were found, are enlisted in the impugned Memo dated 5/6.11.2015. It is further contended by the applicants that the respondents have wrongly reckoned their seniority in violation of the provisions of Para 302 of IREM Vol.I wherein it is clearly mentioned that the promotee's seniority shall be determined from the date of panel. It is claimed by the applicant that certain other Junior Engineers (Signal) were given the benefit of seniority as per the panel dated 11.12.2012. The applicants are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in reckoning his seniority based on the date of shouldering higher responsibility as Junior Engineer, resulting in their not getting promotion to the next higher grade post of Senior Section Engineer as their names did not come up in the zone of consideration for promotion. According to the applicants, the action of the respondents in not rectifying the error committed in ordering promotions by recourse to the provisions of Para 228 of IREM Vol.I is continuous cause of action till the error is rectified.
3. Respondents contested the O.A. by filing a detailed reply. It is categorically mentioned therein by the respondents that the date of panel will be taken into consideration where there is no mandatory training to be imparted before effecting promotion but for promotion to the post of JE, an institutional and field training is mandatory before being promoted. The stand taken by the respondents is that in terms of Para 302 of IREM Vol-I, unless specifically stated otherwise, the seniority among the incumbents of Page 4 of 6 OA/179/2016 a post in a grade is governed by the date of appointment to the grade, but not the date of panel as claimed by the applicant. Further, in terms of Para 302 of IREM Vol-I, only the non-fortuitous service which means the service rendered after the date of regular promotion after due process is only to be considered for the sake of seniority. The terms 'due process' include successful completion of class room training and field training. It is stated by the respondents that the applicants were regularly promoted after due process of selection to the grade on 24.11.2013 and 29.11.2013 i.e. after successful completion of institutional and field training whereas the private respondents, who are direct recruits, joined the post earlier to them after successful completion of training, which is mandatory for the post.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel for the respondents.
5. The short point that falls for consideration before this Tribunal is as to whether the applicants, who are promotees, are entitled to be assigned seniority based on the date of panel pertaining to promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Signal)? The applicants as well as the respondents relied upon Para 302 of IREM Vol.I. For the sake of convenience, it is re- produced hereinbelow:
"302. Seniority in initial recruitment grades-Unless specifically stated otherwise, the seniority among the incumbents of a post in a grade is governed by the date of appointment to the grade. The grant of pay higher than the initial pay should not, as a rule, confer on a Railway servant seniority above those who are already appointed against regular posts. In categories of posts, partially filled by direct recruitment and partially by promotion, the criterion for determination of seniority should be the date of regular promotion after due process in the case of promotee and the date of joining in the working post after due process in the case of direct recruit, subject to maintenance of inter se seniority Page 5 of 6 OA/179/2016 of promotes and direct recruits among themselves. When the dates of entry into a grade of promoted Railway servants and direct recruits are the same, they should be put in alternate positions, the promotees being senior to the direct recruits, maintaining inter se seniority of each group.
Note-(i): In case the training period of a direct recruit is curtailed in the exigencies of service, the date of joining the working post in case of such a direct recruit shall be the date, he would have normally come to a working post after completion of the prescribed period of training.
Note-(ii): The provision contained in Note(i) above will also apply to the Inter Apprentices and departmentally selected candidates against the quotas prescribed in certain categories to be filled by limited departmental competitive examination (such as 10% in the case of Traffic and Commercial Apprentices)."
6. A careful reading of Para 302 of IREM Vol. I makes it crystal clear that the seniority of a promotee should be determined based on the date of regular promotion after due process. It is an undisputed fact that promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Signal) is subject to successful completion of training. Therefore, the question of determining the seniority of the applicant, who is a promotee, based on the date of panel does not arise. It should be determined from the date of order of regular promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Signal) after successful completion of training. Had the said training not been mandatory, the interpretation of Para 302 of IREM by the applicants would have some logic.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the action of the respondents in fixing the seniority of the applicants from the date of their regular promotion after completion of training is in accordance with rules/instructions. Therefore, the O.A. is dismissed being devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to costs.
(B. ANAND) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
/pv/
Page 6 of 6