Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. This development took place on 05.03.2018, during the pendency of this petition.  According to the direct recruits, the action of the Railways in placing some of the promotee officers above the direct recruits was violative of the order of the CAT and   they,   accordingly   filed   contempt   petition   no. 050/00070/17   before   the   CAT   which   was   dismissed   vide order dated 02.04.2018.   The CAT held that in its order the reference   to  N.R.   Parmar’s  case   (supra)   was   regarding removing the arbitrariness due to ‘DITS’ and bringing it in line with the concept of ‘vacancy year/allotment year’, which does away   with   the   problem   and   the   revised   policy   after amendment   fixes   the  ‘allotment/vacancy   year’   for   fixing   the seniority and not ‘DITS’.  It also held that since this Court is seized   of   the   matter,   the   parties   can   place   their   grievance regarding   the   legality   of   the   revised   policy   before   us.   The contempt petition was dismissed.

16. Aggrieved by the order of the CAT, the direct recruit filed writ petition being CWJC No. 6489 of 2018 (R.K. Kushwaha v. Union   of   India   &   Ors.)   before   the   Patna   High   Court   for quashing/setting aside the order dated 02.04.2018 passed in the contempt petition.  Vide order dated 03.05.2018, we have transferred the aforesaid writ petition to this Court.

17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.   Before us Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the appellant (Prabhat Ranjan Singh) submitted that the petition has been rendered infructuous in view of the amendment to Rules 327 to 341 of the IREM Vol­1.   He, however, submitted that the observations made by the CAT and the High Court that the DoPT   circulars   are   binding   on   the   Railways   and   that   the observations   of   the   Patna   High   Court   that   IREM   has   no statutory force are wrong and are liable to be set aside.   On the other hand, Shri Mukul Rohatgi and Shri Guru Krishna Kumar,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for   the   direct recruits submitted that the IREM, which provided for giving weightage in seniority to the promotees, was set aside by the CAT.   Therefore, by still continuing to give weightage to the promotees the contemnors have committed contempt of order of the CAT.  It has also strenuously been urged before us that the rules which provide for giving weightage to the promotee officers are totally illegal and arbitrary.  Shri Maninder Singh, learned   Additional   Solicitor   General   submitted   that   the Railways are empowered to frame their own rules.  According to him, even the  IREMs are issued with the concurrence of the   President   of   India   in   terms   of   Article   309   of   the Constitution   of   India   and   framed   under  the   Constitution   of India.  

32.   We have quoted the order of the CAT hereinabove and what the CAT ordered was that the IREM determining the inter   se   seniority   based   on   DITS   was   clearly   flawed   and arbitrary.  The order dated 09.06.2015 and 12.12.2014 were quashed and set aside being violative of the judgment of this Court   in  N.R.   Parmar’s  case   (supra)   and   the   DoPT guidelines.   As held above there was no challenge to Rule 334 which provides for giving weightage to the promotees. This Rule was not challenged directly or indirectly and the CAT has not at all dealt with this Rule.  We may add that an identical rule has been held to be valid by this Court in A.K. Nigam   vs.   Sunil Misra2.   This judgment has been noted by the CAT and yet the CAT did not discuss this judgment. It is obvious that the CAT did not go into the validity of Rule

334.   All that the CAT held was that instead of the ‘DITS’ being   the   determining   factor   to   determine   the   year   of promotion, the seniority would be determined with reference to the ‘year of allotment’ following the principle of IAS Rules. The   CAT   rightly   dismissed   the   contempt   petition   holding that the entire discussion with reference to  N.R. Parmar’s case (supra) was regarding removing the arbitrariness due to ‘DITS’ and bringing it in line with the concept of vacancy year/allotment   year   which   does   away   with   the   problem. Thus the CAT itself has clearly held that it had not at all (1994) Supp.2 SCC 245 dealt with the issue whether promotees were not entitled of being granted weightage of 5 years service for determining the seniority.  This question never arose before the Tribunal and   as   such   the   action   of   the   Railways   in   amending   the Rules to bring them in line with the judgment of the CAT by removing ‘DITS’ as the determining factor for fixing seniority and   introducing   the   ‘year   of   allotment’   as   the   criteria   for determining the seniority can in no manner be said to be violative or against the order of the CAT.   In fact, the said order is totally in line with the order of the CAT.