SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(All) 693

[2009(5) ADJ 10 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : S. RAFAT ALAM AND SUDHIR AGARWAL, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Petitioners
Versus
RAM SURAJ AND ANOTHER .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11180 of 2009, decided on 2nd March, 2009)

Advocates:
Counsel :
V.K. Goel for the Petitioners.

Headnote:Transfer—From Northern Railway to North Eastern Railway—Submission of application—Acceptance of—Aforesaid transfer was on bottom seniority, since was allowed on request of respondent-1 himself—Said G.M. (Karmik) N.R., Baroda House, New Delhi, directed him to submit his joining in office of G.M. (P) N.E.R., Gorakhpur for further postings—And, respondent relieved on 28.11.2000—And, he submitted joining on 4.12.2000—Meanwhile, Railway Board, vide circular dated 8.2.2000 amended Indian Railways Establishment Manual (i.e. I.R.E.M.) by inserting Para 102-A in Chapter I, Section B, sub-section (1)—However, G.M. (P) refused to allow joining to respondent-1—Petitioners did not treat respondent-1 on duly from 1.12.2000 to 26/30.4.2002, when he was allowed to join at N.E.R., and communicating same, vide letter dated 29.4.2002—Hence, respondent-1 approach Tribunal (CAT) for treating him on duty during period from 4.12.2000 to 26.4.2004, and to pay salary, and other consequential benefits for said period—During pendency of that O.A. before Tribunal, G.M., N.E.R.,Gorakhpur passed another transfer order from N.E.R. Gorakhpur to N.R., New Delhi on 17.6.2006—Whereagainst, he filed another O.A. 772/04—Both O.As. heard and disposed of by Tribunal, directing respondent-1, cannot be treated to be unauthorisedly absent from 4.12.2000 to 25.4.2002—And that he was entitled for salary, treating him on duty for said period—Hence, petition by Union of India—Held, transfer order, which was already passed in year 1998-99, approved by Competent authority on 4.2.2000, same could not have been said to be bad on account of subsequent amendment in Indian Railway Establishment Manual by inserting Para 102-A as per Circular of Railway Board, dated 8.2.2000—Hence, petitioners (Union of India) guilty of not permitting respondent-1 to join at N.E.R., Gorakhpur—No interference with order of Tribunal. [Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Para 102; Chapter 1, Section B, sub-section (1)]. [Paras 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15]

       

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—Heard Sri V.K. Goel for the petitioners at length.

2. The writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) disposing of the Original Applications No. 562 and 772 of 2004 of the petitioner-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “respondent No. 1”.

3. It appears from the record that the respondent No. 1 was working as PWI Selection Grade-III in Northern Railway in the pay scale of 6500-10,500 in the year 1997 and was posted at Sadaulpur, Rajasthan under Bikaner Division of Northern Railway. He submitted an application seeking his transfer from Northern Railway to North Eastern Railway, which was accepted by the competent authority and was communicated to the respondent No. 1 by letter dated 4.2.2000 issued by the General Manager (Karmik), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. The aforesaid transfer was on bottom seniority since was allowed on the request of the respondent No. 1 himself. It directed him to submit his joining in the office of General Manager (P) North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur for further posting. The respondent No. 1 was relieved on 28.11.2000. He submitted joining on 4.12.2000. It is said that vide Circular dated 8.2.2000, the Railway Board in the meantime amended the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (in short “IREM”) by inserting Para 102-A in Chapter-1 Section ‘B’ sub-section (1) which provides as under :

“102-A : Notwithstanding the provisions constrained in this Chapter, transfer on request on bottom seniority in the grades having an element of direct recruitment will be permissible against the quota prescribed for direct recruitment, provided that the employee seeking transfer possess the qualification prescribed for direct recruitment to the post to which transfer is sought for.”

4. The General Manager (Personnel), however, refused to allow joining to the respondent No. 1. The General Manager (Personnel) U.P. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi, thereafter, sent a letter on 1st January/February 2001 referring the matter for approval of the Railway Board and in the meantime, requested the concerned authorities at Gorakhpur to issue a first class duty pass in favour of the respondent No. 1 so as to enable him travel from Gorakhpur to Bikaner. There is nothing on record to show that such Duty Pass was issued. It appears that no decision was taken immediately but on the other hand, the Railway Board advised that the respondent No. 1 since did not possess the requisite qualification for his appointment as Junior Engineer/PW 1 pay scale 6500-10,500 as per Para 102-A of IREM and, therefore, if he agrees, he may be allowed to remain on transfer in the scale of 5000-8000 failing which he may be sent back. The respondent No. 1 did not exercise any option, though he was informed by letter dated 5.7.2000 and 18.7.2000. Ultimately the North Eastern Railway vide its letter dated 26.4.2002 accepted respondent No. 1’s transfer and posted him in a single cadre post under TMC Organization under Executive Engineer, Gorakhpur as Section Engineer/TMC in the pay scale 6500-10,500. Request was then sent by the General Manager (P), North Eastern Railway to the Railway Board by letter dated 6.7.2002 seeking its approval for respondent No. 1’s posting as Section Engineer/PW 1 in the pay scale of 6500-10,500. The petitioners, however, did not treat the respondent No. 1 on duty from 1.12.2000 to 26/30.4.2002 when he was allowed to join at North Eastern Railway and communicating the same vide letter dated 29.4.2002, aggrieved whereagainst, the respondent No. 1 approached the Tribunal vide O.A. No. 560 of 2004 for treating him on duty during the period from 4.12.2000 to 26.4.2004 and to pay salary and other consequential benefits for the said period. While the aforesaid Original Application was pending before the Tribunal, it appears that the General Manager North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur passed another order









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top