Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. There are 12 applicants in this OA all of whom were recruited as Asst. Station Master / Train Clerk / Traffic Apprentice on different dates between 1971 and 1991. They earned their promotions and while they were discharging the duties of Dy. / Chief Yard Masters / Yard Masters / Asst. Yard Masters, the posts held by them had become surplus due to partial closure of the yard. The Respondents have a policy of absorbing the surplus employees in alternative posts and the guidelines are given in the Master Circular dated 27-3-1991. The Respondents 2 to 4 called for options from the applicants. It is the case of the applicants that it was not mentioned at the time of exercise of the option that the applicants are to take bottom seniority. After completing the formalities, the applicants were absorbed as Goods Guards. But contrary to the Master Circular, it was mentioned in the proceedings that the applicants should take bottom seniority. The applicants, except applicants No. 9 and 10, claim that they were drawing more pay than the maximum of the grade in which they were absorbed. It is the applicant's case that the transfers of the applicants were on administrative grounds and the Respondent's action in treating them as request transfers is highly illegal and contrary to the facts of the case. The applicants also claim that in the provisional seniority list of Goods Guards in the scale of Rs.4500-7000 issued by Respondent No.4, they have been shown in the wrong place by treating their transfer as request transfer and placing them in bottom seniority. The applicants have questioned the failure of the Respondents to protect their pay and seniority and in refusing them transfer allowance on the following additional grounds :