Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that vide order dated 23.05.2016 (Annexure A/1), the respondents have rejected the representation of the applicant dated 18.04.2016 (Annexure A/2). In the first place, counsel for the applicant submitted that the order of rejection of representation has not been made by the competent authority and it has been rejected by the same authority who had issued the transfer order just to justify his action. Further counsel for applicant submitted that in the context of the issues raised in the OA, that amongst others, there are two posts in the Railways namely of Train Conductor (TNRC) and Train Ticket Inspector (TTI). He further submitted that while it is the duty of the TTI to check and issue tickets during the running train, it is the duty of the Train Conductor (TNCR) to manage the passengers and the coach. Counsel for applicant then referred to instructions of the Railway Board dated 26.06.2000 (Annexure A/4) relating to Periodical transfers of such employees and specially cited para 4 (i) (a) & (b), (at page 29 of OA), which provide as under:

4(i)(a). The first category includes staff of the Commercial Department (such as Commercial Supervisors, Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerks / Booking Clerks, Goods Clerks, Parcel Clerks, Ticket Checking staff etc.) and the staff of the Operating Department (SSs/SMs/ASMs etc).

(b) In order to avoid large scale dislocation in the case of this category of staff, periodical transfers may, as far as possible, be effected without involving a change of residence of the staff concerned, so long as the fundamental objectives of such transfers can be achieved by transferring such staff to a different location in the same station or to a different station in the same urban agglomeration. Counsel for applicant then referred to Annexure A/6 instructions dated 24.10.2011, (at page 33 of the OA), wherein a Schedule has been prescribed for carrying out such periodical transfers.

9. Per contra, counsel for respondents submitted that in fact the applicant has joined at the place of transfer and thereby the O.A. has become infructuous. To this, counsel for applicant submitted that though the applicant has joined at the place of transfer, but he has joined on protest and on this ground alone, the O.A. cannot become infructuous and the issue is required to be decided on merits for which he has already made his arguments.

10. Counsel for the respondents also refuted the contention of the counsel for applicant that the representation has been rejected by an incompetent authority, because the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager is the competent authority to decide the transfers/postings of the Ticket Checking Staff and the orders have been issued accordingly.

19. Counsel for the applicant has raised the contention that the rejection of the representation vide order dated 23.05.2016 (Annexure A/1) has been made by an incompetent authority, but it has been brought out by the respondents that the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager is the competent authority for transfer / posting of Ticket Checking Staff. There is no ground to dispute the reply of the respondents and therefore the contention of the counsel for the applicant that the order has not been passed by a competent authority does not hold ground.