IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. MANIKUMAR & N. ATHINATHAN, JJ.
The Secretary, Union of India, Railway Board, New Delhi & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 17220 of 2014 and M.P. No. 1 of 2014
Decided On : 03-01-2017
Seniority Dispute - Indian Railways Medical Manual, Vol.I - The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Rules 312 and 313 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Vol.I - Railway Board's Circular No.E(NG)I-76 SR6/37, dated 18.09.1976 - Railway Board's Circular No.E(NG)63 SR 6-31, dated 26.08.1964 - Railway Board's Circular No.E(NG)I-76 SR6/37, dated 18.09.1976 - Railway Board's Circular No.E(NG)I-2004/RE-3/9, dated 31.05.2005
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a seniority dispute between the 2nd respondent, who was initially appointed as Khalasi and later promoted as Saw Mechanic, and the 3rd respondent, who was also promoted as Saw Mechanic. The 2nd respondent was considered unfit for the original post of Saw Mechanic and was assigned an alternative job as Carpenter Grade III. The dispute arose when the 2nd respondent sought restoration of seniority in the post of Saw Mechanic, which had been merged with CB Fitter, and claimed seniority on par with the 3rd respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the representation made by the 2nd respondent in 2004 to review his medical fitness was not considered an appeal under the relevant rules, and therefore, the 2nd respondent could not be restored to the post of Saw Mechanic with original seniority. The Court also held that the 2nd respondent, who had been medically unfit and de-categorised in 1988 and worked as Carpenter Grade III, could not be treated on par with the 3rd respondent, who had continued in the channel of promotion from Saw Mechanic to HSK-II and subsequently to HSK-I.
Issues: The main issue in the case was the restoration of seniority in the post of Saw Mechanic for the 2nd respondent, who had been medically unfit and assigned an alternative job as Carpenter Grade III.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant rules and circulars, which clarified the procedure for reconsideration of adverse medical reports, transfer on request, and the seniority of medically incapacitated staff in alternative posts. The Court also considered the provisions of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and its applicability to the case.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and allowed the writ petition, finding in favor of the writ petitioners.
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
Challenge in this writ petition is to an order, made in O.A. No. 1554 of 2011, dated 06.09.2013, by which, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai, has quashed the order, dated 29.08.2011 of the Assistant Personnel Officer, Southern Railways, Chennai, the 3rd writ petitioner herein and further directed the writ petitioners to post the 2nd respondent as CB Fitter Grade II, on par with Mr. M. Loganathan, the 3rd respondent herein, and to grant all consequential benefits, within a period of two months, from the date of the order in Original Application.
2. Facts leading to the writ petition are that the 2nd respondent was initially appointed as Khalasi on 29.10.1983. He was promoted as Khalasi Helper and thereafter, as Saw Mechanic in the scale Rs.950-1000, w.e.f. 1.4.1987, along with one Mr. Krishnan and Mr. M. Loganathan, the 3rd respondent herein. According to 2nd respondent, the said Mr. Krishnan was senior to him and the 3rd respondent herein was his junior. Vide order, dated 12.09.1988, the 2nd respondent was considered unfit for the original post of Saw Mechanic, but fit for an alternative job as Carpenter Grade III, in the same pay and grade. The seniority list of Carpentary Grade III was prepared on 10.10.1990, in which, seniority of the 2nd respondent was reckoned from 12.9.1988, instead of 1.4.1987. Therefore, he made a representation, dated 14.5.1992, against the change in the seniority position, to which, the writ petitioners replied that the seniority assigned was in order. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent filed O.A. No. 1338 of 1993, which was dismissed on 02.04.1996. However, during the pendency of the said OA, he requested for fresh medical examination, to find his suitability, to the original post, Saw Mechanic.
3. The Medical Department, vide communication, dated 19.6.2004, found him fit for the post of Saw Mechanic. In the meanwhile, the post of Saw Mechanic was merged with Grade C.B. Fitter. In view of the merger and the subsequent medical fitness, the 2nd respondent has contended that he was eligible for the post of C.B. Fitter, with his original seniority, above the 3rd respondent. He made a representation, dated 24.5.2010, to post him, in the post of Highly Skilled Grade I, with seniority and other benefits. The said request was rejected by the Assistant Personnel Officer, Southern Railways, Chennai, 3rd petitioner herein, vide order, dated 29.8.2011, to the effect that benefits of the provisions of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act, 1995, would be given to those, who were rendered medically unfit from 7.2.1996 and not to those, who were found unfit, prior to that date.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent has preferred O.A. No. 1554 of 2011, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, to quash the order, dated 29.08.2011 and consequently, prayed for a direction to the writ petitioners to post him as CB Fitter Grade II and assign him seniority in the post of Saw Mechanic, merged as CB Fitter and on par with his junior, viz., 3rd respondent herein, and to grant him all consequential benefits. According to the 2nd respondent, as per the Railway Board's order, dated 7.1.1975, a medically unfit person, absorbed in alternative appointment, on being declared subsequently fit for the original category, is entitled to retain his original seniority in the post, he was medically find unfit, if he has preferred the appeal in time.
5. Before the Tribunal, the writ petitioners in their reply, have contended that the 2nd respondent has made a representation, dated 27.5.2004, after a lapse of 15 years to review his medical fitness for the post of Saw Mechanic. Inasmuch as the post of Saw Mechanic, in which, he was permanently declared unfit as on 25.05.1988, has been merged with CB Fitter, he was again referred to the medical authority, to ascertain, as to whether he was fit for CB F
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.