MAIN POINTS
Service conditions of Railway employees are governed by rules framed by Railways including the IREC and the IREM.
IREM rules and various modifications/amendments thereto issued under proviso to Article 309 havde statutory force. Railways is not bound by memorandum issued by DoPT and is empowered to frame its own rules to lay down the service conditions of its employees.
Basis of a challenge has to be made in original application and the concerned rule had to be specifically challenged in the prayer clause.
Requisition sent in 2007 for recruitment related to vacancies in 2009. Therefore direct recruits were not entitled to seniority form 2007.

Headnote:(a) Service law – Railway service – Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 – Service conditions of Railway employees – Governed by rules framed by Railways including the IREC and the IREM. (Para 22)
       (b)Constitution of India – Article 309 Proviso – IREM rules and various modifications/amendments thereto issued under proviso to Article 309 – Held, IREM has statutory force – Further held, Railways is not bound by memorandum issued by DoPT and is empowered to frame its own rules to lay down the service conditions of its employees. (Para 23, 24, 25)
       © Practice and procedure – Direct recruits only praying, in original application, that correction be made with a view to bring the IREM in line with DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014, which is based on the principle of law framed in N.R. Parmar’s case – No whisper of challenge to policy of giving weightage to promotes – Basis of a challenge has to be made in original application and the rule granting such weightage had to be specifically challenged in the prayer clause. (Para 26)
       (2012) 13 SCC 340 – Referred
       (d) Service law – Railway service – Requisition sent in 2007 for recruitment related to vacancies in 2009 – Held, CAT and High Court rightly held that direct recruits were not entitled to seniority form 2007 – CAT only ordered that the arbitrariness which may arise due to fixation of ‘DITS’ be removed by fixing the ‘year of allotment’ as the relevant criteria. (Para 31)
       (e) Service law – Railway service – IREM – Railways amending rule 327/341 by removing ‘DITS’ as the determining factor for fixing seniority and introducing the ‘year of allotment’ instead – Held, amendment not violative of but in line with order of CAT. (Para 32)
       (1994) Supp.2 SCC 245; (2013) 8 SCC 693 – Referred
       Facts of the case:
       This case relates to inter se seniority between promotes and direct recruits in Indian Railway Service of Signal Engineers (IRSSE).
       In the instant case the promotee officers were placed en bloc senior to all the direct recruits.
       Shri R.K. Kushwaha, a direct recruit, filed O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the seniority given to the promotee officers vide order dated 12.12.2014.
       None of the promotee officers was made a party in this O.A.. Shri Prabhat Ranjan, who was a promotee and also the General Secretary of East Central Railway Promotee Officers Association, East Central Railway at Hajipur filed an application for impleadment. The application was allowed.
       The CAT partly allowed the O.A.. It rejected the prayer of Shri R.K. Kushwaha that the direct recruits were entitled to get seniority from 23.10.2007 the date on which the requisition for filling up the direct vacancies was sent.
       However, the CAT went on to examine the speaking order passed by the Chairman, Railway Board dated 09.06.2015 and examined the same in the context of the DoPT circular dated 04.03.2014 and the judgment passed in the N.R. Parmar’s case.
       Shri Prabhat Ranjan Singh challenged the order of the CAT before the High Court by filing Writ Petition along with one Shri Girish Kumar. This petition was dismissed and one of the main grounds for dismissal of the petition was that the circular of the DoPT dated 04.03.2014 was binding on the Railways.
       Finding of the Court:
       CAT had only directed that instead of ‘DITS’, the ‘year of allotment’ should be the determining factor/criteria for determining the inter se seniority. We further hold that there was neither any challenge to Rule 334 of the IREM Vol. 1 in the original application nor did the CAT go into this issue. We, accordingly uphold the order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the CAT, Patna Bench dismissing the contempt petition filed by the direct recruit Mr. R.K. Kushwaha.
       Result: Transferred Case No. 52/2018 i.e. Writ Petition being CWJC No. 6489/2018 before the Patna High Court dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta J.

1. Leave granted in appeal arising out of SLP (C) No(s).22444 of 2017.

2. This is yet another battle, in the seemingly never ending war between promotees and direct recruits.

3. In the Indian Railways, there is a service known as the Indian Railway Service of Signal Engineers (for short ‘the IRSSE’). This is a GROUP-A service. Recruitment to the service is by two modes – 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion from amongst GROUP-B officers in the feeder services. The direct recruits are selected through an examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (for short ‘the UPSC’).

4. On 23.10.2007, the Ministry of Railways issued a requisition to the UPSC for filling up vacancies in the GROUP-A service. The test was to be conducted in the year 2008 and the recruitment was known as the Engineering Services Examination, 2008. Shri R.K. Kushwaha, hereinafter referred to as ‘the direct recruit’, was successful in the said examination. He was duly selected and joined service on 14.12.2009. Some officers, who were working in the GROUP-B service of the Signal and Telecommunication Department of the Indian Railways were promoted vide order dated 12.08.2014 to GROUP-A service with effect from 08.05.2014. These officers were given benefit of weightage of 5 years of service rendered in GROUP-B service in terms of Rule 334 of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual (for short ‘the IREM’), Vol.1 and their relevant date for fixation of seniority was fixed as 08.05.2009.

5. The relevant portion of the order dated 12.12.2014 fixing the seniority of the 87 promotee officers reads as follows:

“2. All the 87 officers will be placed in the seniority listbelow the junior most direct recruit (DR) IRSSE officer of Engineering Service Examination (ESE) 2007 batch (earliest date of joining 15.12.2008), and above the senior most Direct Recruit IRSSE officers of Engineering Service Examination of 2008 batch (earliest joining 14.12.2009), whose interse seniority has already been circulated.”

Resultantly the promotee officers were placed en bloc senior to all the direct recruits.

6. Shri R.K. Kushwaha, a direct recruit, filed O.A. No. 050/00260/2015 before the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the CAT’) challenging the seniority given to the promotee officers vide order dated 12.12.2014. The petition was disposed of vide order dated 01.04.2015 directing the Chairman of the Railway Board to consider the representation of Shri R.K. Kushwaha dated 19.03.2015 within a period of two months. The Chairman vide speaking order dated 09.06.2015 rejected the plea of Shri R.K. Kushwaha to fix the seniority of the direct recruits from the date of sending of the requisition. According to the Chairman, the seniority of the Junior Scale, GROUP-A officers of the eight organised railway services including the IRSSE was to be fixed in terms of the provisions contained in the IREM Vol-1 which had the approval of the President under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

7. Shri R.K. Kushwaha thereafter filed a fresh O.A. being O.A. No. 460 of 2015 claiming the following reliefs :

“8.1 That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 09/12.06.2015 passed by the Respondent No.1 together with order dated 12.12.2014 passed by the respondent No. 4 as contained in Annexure A/8 and A/4 respectively which are contrary to the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in NR Parmar Case and DOPT OM dated 04.03.2014 as referred to above.
8.2 That your Lordships may further be pleased to direct the respondents to recast the seniority list afresh on the basis of principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in NR Parmar Case and DOPT OM dated 04.03.2014 as referred to above without any further delay.
8.3 That the Respondents further be directed to issue Corrigendum/amendment/Correction slip in Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume-1, henceforth in view of new Guid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 871

Cases Referred (3)