Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 468 (KER)

Union Of India v. K. retheesh, S/o. K. Mohandas

2025-03-05

AMIT RAWAL, K.V.JAYAKUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : (K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J.) Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.355/2014, Ernakulam Bench dated 11.12.2018, Union of India and its officers preferred this OP(CAT). 2. The applicants (64 in numbers), who are working as Assistant Loco Pilots (ALPs) in Southern Railway, knocked the doors of the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming transfer and seniority in preference to the party respondents. All the applicants submitted their request for inter-divisional transfer from Salem division to Palakkad division and their names were registered for Palakkad division. 3. As per the orders of the Railway Board, a person requesting for inter-divisional transfer is to be appointed against the vacancies in the direct recruitment quota and be given preference over such recruitment. When the department attempted to appoint number of direct recruits through General Departmental Competitive Examination, the applicants instituted O.A.No.772/2011 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, as per order dated 17.02.2012, directed that inter divisional transfers are to be effected before the appointment of the direct recruits. 4. The main grievance of the respondents/applicants was that the petitioners have determined the seniority of the direct recruits, without considering the orders passed by the Tribunal in OA No.902/2010 and connected cases. The respondents/applicants claimed seniority as per the orders passed by the Tribunal in the aforementioned OA. The respondents/applicants have laid the following claims before the Central Administrative Tribunal. “(i) Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure Al and Annexure Al(a) quash the same; (ii) Declare that the applicants are entitled to be transferred and appointed against DR quota vacancies in the Palakkad Division of Southern Railway in preference to those who are included in A5, A6 and A7 as declared in A3 and A4 which have become final and conclusive, and direct the respondents accordingly; (iii) Direct the respondents to assign the applicants seniority in preference to those who are included in A5, A6 and A7 in the matter of absorption against DR quota vacancies of ALPs in the Palakkad Division of Southern Railway and direct the respondents to grant all the consequential benefits arising there from; (iv) Award costs of and incidental to this application; (v) Pass such other orders or directions as deemed just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case." 5. The contention of the petitioners/Union of India and its officers was that the seniority of railway employees are covered by paragraph 312 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM), Volume I. As per the said Manual, seniority of railway servants transferred at their own request from railway to another should be assigned below that of the existing/confirmed temporary and official railway servants in the relevant grades in the new establishment, irrespective of the date of confirmation or length of officiating or temporary service of the transferred railway servant. 6. Noticing the rival contentions of the counsel for the parties, the Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the original application holding that the applicants are entitled to be transferred against direct recruitment quota vacancies in Palakkad division of Southern railway in preference to those who are included in Annexures-A5, A6 and A7 and to assign them seniority in preference to the party respondents. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents/applicants supported the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. On the other hand, Adv.Asha Cherian, Standing Counsel for Railways submitted that the impugned order is legally unsustainable. 8. We have heard the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. 9. The learned counsel for the Railways submitted that the attempt of the applicants/respondents is to agitate the issue highlighted in Ext.P1, common order in an earlier O.A. 772/2011. 10. The Tribunal, noticing the rival contentions of the parties, allowed the OA. The relevant paragraphs of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal are extracted hereunder: “4. This Tribunal vide order dated 17.2.2012 in OA No. 902 of 2010 and connected cases held that before the next recruitment takes place to the post of ASM/ALP, either from the open market or from GDCE, the case of the applicants shall be considered on priority basis and where concurrence has been given, such individuals should be relieved in a phased manner so that all those who are to be transferred would be accommodated before the next recruitment takes place. On an MA filed by the parties the above order has been clarified by this Tribunal elaborately. On an MA filed by the parties the above order has been clarified by this Tribunal elaborately. However, vide the impugned order the respondents have simply negated the claim by a one line submission that on interdivisional transfer of the applicants as held by the Tribunal they are not entitled for assignment of seniority above those employees who were existing/confirmed temporary and officiating in the cadre of ALP prior to joining in Palakkad Division. This Tribunal while disposing of OA No. 902 of 2010 and connected cases has observed that the applicants shall be considered on priority basis and where concurrence has been given, such individuals should be relieved in a phased manner so that all those who are to be transferred would be accommodated before the next recruitment takes place. Not complying with this order amounts to showing disregard to the order passed by this Tribunal and respondents took the order of this Tribunal very lightly. As regards the objection raised in the reply by the respondents regarding non-joinder of parties the applicants have amended the OA and impleaded the necessary persons as party respondents. Notices were issued to them. However, there was no response on their behalf on the merit of the case. The other argument also will not hold much water for the simple reason that had the order of the Tribunal has been complied with in the letter and spirit the applicants could have got their seniority. Under these circumstances we feel that there is merit on the side of the applicants who have approached this Tribunal for the second time. 5. Considering facts, circumstances and legal position of the case in hand we hold that the applicants are entitled to be transferred against direct recruitment quota vacancies in Palakkad Division of Southern Railway in preference to those who are included in Annexures A5, A6 and A7 and assign them seniority in preference to the party respondents. Ordered accordingly. The applicants are entitled for all consequential benefits arising therefrom. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” On perusal of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and upon hearing the submissions of the counsel across the Bar, we do not find any illegality, perversity, much less fallacy in its order. No good ground for interference is made out. No good ground for interference is made out. OP(CAT) fails and it stands dismissed.