Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) Applicant No.1 was appointed as Section Officer in Railway Board Secretariat Service (RBSS) through Civil Services Examination, 1996. Applicants No. 2 & 3 were so appointed through Civil Services Examination, 1997. Presently, they are working as Under Secretary on ad hoc basis. As per Rule-8(3) of RBSS Rules, 1969 the next promotion for the post of Section Officer is to the post of Grade-I (Under Secretary/Deputy Director). Section Officers with 08 years of approved service in that grade are eligible for promotion. On 12.02.1997, a proviso was inserted in Rule-8(3) by which it was directed that if a junior was being considered for promotion to Grade-I then a senior, who has rendered not less than 06 years approved service in that grade, shall also be considered even if he does not have the requisite 08 years of service. On 07.02.2000 this proviso was, however, deleted with retrospective effect. In an explanatory Note given below such deletion it was certified that interest of no one shall be pre-judicially affected by giving retrospective effect to this deletion. On 29.06.2011, the Railway Board have issued panels for the years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 for promotion of 90 Section Officers of RBSS as Under Secretary. The names of the applicants did not figure in these panels despite the fact that several juniors to the applicants were included in the same. According to the applicants they were not included on the ground that they had not completed 08 years of service required for such promotion. The applicants then made a representation on 16.07.2011 for including their names in the panels for the years 2003-04 & 2004-05 stating therein that as per proviso inserted in Rule-8(3) on 12.02.1997 they were eligible to be considered since they had completed 06 years of service and that the certificate given on 07.02.2000 to the effect no bodys interest would be prejudicially affected while deleting the aforesaid proviso retrospectively was incorrect. Their representation was considered by the competent authority in the Railway Board and on 16.01.2012 a request was made by the Board to UPSC to conduct a review DPC to consider inclusion of the names of the applicants for the panel year 2004-05. UPSC first sought some information from the Railway Board on 07.02.2012 but later on vide their letter dated 15.03.2012 refused to conduct a review DPC. The Railway Board again requested UPSC on 19.04.2012 to agree to their request for conducting a review DPC. However, on 15.05.2012, the UPSC reiterated their stand. The applicant then filed OA-3496/2012 before this Tribunal. This was disposed of on 16.10.2012 with the following directions:-

2. When the aforesaid order of the Tribunal was not being complied with, the applicants filed CP-186/2013. Thereafter on 20.11.2012, the UPSC passed the impugned order rejecting the proposal of the Railway Board for conducting review DPC. The CP was closed by the Tribunal on 03.03.2014 with liberty given to the applicant to challenge the aforesaid order of UPSC through separate original proceedings. Accordingly, the applicants have filed this O.A. before us seeking the following relief:-

(i) That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order/letter dated 20/23.11.2012 (Annex.A/1), declaring to the effect that the whole action of the UPSC not conducting the review DPC for considering the cases of the applicants for their regular promotion to the post of grade-I of RBSS i.e. the grade of Under Secretary/Deputy Director as per the decision taken by the Railway Board as per the Railway Board proposal dated 16.01.2012 is illegal, arbitrary, against the rules and against the law on the land. It is further prayed that the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the UPSC to conduct a review DPC immediately as per the Ministry of Railways proposal contained in their letter dated 16.01.2012 and consider the cases of the applicants for their regular promotion to the post of Grade-I of RBSS in the panel of 2003-04 and 2004-05 with all consequential benefits from the due date. It is also prayed that the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to further promote the applicants to the posts of Joint Director/Deputy Secretary from the date of promotion of junior persons within a specific time frame.
(ii) That the Honble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order of Ministry of Railways dated 29.06.2011 only to the extent by which the applicants have not been considered for their regular promotion to the post of grade-I of RBSS and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to consider the cases of the applicants for their promotion to the post of Grade-I RBSS in the select panel 2003-04/2004-05 and for their further promotion to the grade of Joint Director/Dy. Secretary with all consequential benefits, alongwith the arrears of difference of pay and allowances.

3.1 Applicants have further submitted that to avoid situations where juniors are considered for promotion and seniors are not on account of not possessing the requisite eligibility service, DoP&T have been issuing instructions from time to time. The proviso dated 12.02.1997 was incorporated in RBSS Rules, 1969 on account of instructions conveyed by DoP&T vide their O.M. No. AB-14017/12/88-Estt.(RR) dated 25.03.1996. While the Railway Board subsequently deleted this proviso on 07.02.2000 retrospectively, they wrongly certified that nobodys interest would be pre-judicially affected by giving retrospective effect to this deletion. Since this proviso had been inserted in compliance of DoP&Ts Instructions dated 25.03.1996, which have again been reiterated in DoP&Ts O.M. dated 31.12.2010, this deletion itself was unwarranted. In fact, as mentioned by Railway Board in their clarification to UPSC dated 12.06.2012, the aforesaid OMs of DoP&T are still in force and in fact Recruitment Rules of sister service, namely, AFHQ Civil Services have been amended to insert the same provision.