Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : R.M. Lodha,Mahesh Chandra Sharma
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
Kumari Amrit Kaur - Respondent
2125 of 2001
Decided On : 09/11/2007
Senior Clerk - Railway Recruitment - Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume-I Revised Edition, 1989, Paragraph 302, 303, 312 - The court discussed the provisions of Paragraph 302, 303, and 312 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume-I Revised Edition, 1989, which govern the seniority of non-gazetted railway servants, the determination of seniority of candidates recruited through the Railway Recruitment Board, and the seniority of railway servants transferred at their own request. The court highlighted the criteria for determining seniority in the case of promotees and direct recruits, and the relevance of the date of joining the working post after due process in the case of direct recruits.
Fact of the Case:
The employee was appointed as a Junior Clerk and later selected as a senior clerk. The dispute arose regarding the date of her joining as a senior clerk, leading to a challenge to the seniority list.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the employee's date of joining as a senior clerk was 04.04.1989, based on the provisions of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume-I Revised Edition, 1989.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of the employee's date of joining as a senior clerk, based on the change of her group from MOCG to WBMS and the subsequent office orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Paragraph 302, 303, and 312 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume-I Revised Edition, 1989 to determine the employee's date of joining as a senior clerk.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
R.M. Lodha, J.-The Railway has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur whereby the Original Application filed by the present Respondent No. 1 has been allowed and the direction has been issued to place her as senior clerk w.e.f. 04.04.2989 in the seniority list of senior clerks.
2. The controversy arises thus :
(a) Kumari Amrit Kaur Raj.-Respondent No. 1 (for short, the employee) was appointed on 011.1986 as Junior Clerk, on compassionate ground in Kota Division of Western Railway.
(b) Railway Recruitment Board, in the year 1988, held the examination for direct recruitment of senior clerks against the service graduates quota. The employee appeared in the said examination and was declared successful.
(c) On 112.1988, a list of successful candidates from amongst the service graduates of Kota division for recruitment to Class II posts (senior clerk) was published. The name of the employee appeared at Item No. 16 of the said list. By the said list, the selected candidates were asked to give three options for posting in Ajmer, Jaipur, Kota, Ratlam, Jodhpur and Bikaner Divisions/Units.
(d) The employee sent communication to the Divisional Railway Manger, Kota on 112.1988 indicating her option for Kota division for posting and her lien.
(e) By the office order dated 03.04.1989, the DRM, Kota issued an office order appointing nineteen persons in Class III service senior clerks in the scale of 1200-2040 (RP) Kota Division. In so far as the employee was concerned, she was posted in the office of Loco Foreman, Kota.
(f) On 04.04.1989, the employee sent a representation to the Divisional Railway Manager (E), Western Railway, Kota stating therein that her group be changed from Mechanic, Operating, Commercial and General (for short, MOCG) to Works, Budget, Stores and Medical (for short, WBMS). She set to the reasons for change of her group.
(g) On 18.04.1989, the office of Chief Engineer (Survey & Civil), Church Gate, Bombay sent a communication to the Deputy Chief Engineer (S & C) Kota that the employee may be retained as senior clerk in his office by upgrading the post of junior clerk and the Divisional Railway Manager (E), Kota he asked to maintain her lien a senior clerk on his Division. The Divisional Railway Manager (E), Kota was sent copy of the communication.
(h) The Deputy Chief Engineer (S & C), Kota issued an order being office Order No. 498 dated 20.04.1989 that the employee was being posted in his office in place of the office of Loco Foreman, Kota and that the said order shall be effective from 04.04.1989. Thus, the employee was posted to work as senior clerk in the office of the Deputy Chief Engineer (S & C), Kota.
(i) On 29.09.1989, the Divisional Office, Kota issued an office order posting inter-alia, the employee in the office of Deputy Chief Engineer (S & C), Kota as senior clerk in the pay scale of 1200-2040 (RP).
(j) The office of the Divisional Railway Manager issued a seniority list of senior clerks in the scale of 1200-2040 (RP) on 17.07.1991/22.07.1991, wherein the name of the employee was shown at 64 indicating her joining of duty on the working post of senior clerk on 02.09.1989.
(k) Theemployee was up-set by the said seniority list and made representations. When nothing was heard from the authorities, she approached the Central Administrative Tribunal praying therein that the seniority list dated 17.07.1991/22.07.1991 be quashed and set aside an that the Railway Authorities may be directed to issue fresh seniority list by showing her name below Smt. Pushplata Dubey and above Mangi Lal whose names find place at Senior Nos. 9 and 10 in the seniority list of senior clerks.
3. The railway authoriti8es filed their reply in opposition to the Original Application. They set up the defence that the employee was posted in the office of Loco Foreman, Kota but she did not join there and made a representation on .04.04.1989 w
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
