Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
HC No.2929 RPF Vinod Kumar -Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others -Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 59860, 55164, 57659 and 53803 of 2008
Decided On : 27-10-2010
Transfer - Railway Protection Special Force - Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, Rules, 1987 - Rule 99.2, 101 - The court discussed the provisions of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 and Rules, 1987, particularly Rule 99.2 and 101, which govern the transfer of members of the Railway Protection Force. The court emphasized that the concept of bottom seniority is a recognized consequence in service matters and that the rules contemplate only loss of seniority, not reversion to a lower post. The court also highlighted that there is no estoppel against the statute and that the efficacy of the rules cannot be extended or whittled down by executive orders or actions not supported by the statute.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, members of the Railway Protection Special Force, sought transfer to the Railway Protection Force. Subsequently, they were required to give an option for absorption as Constable in the feeder cadre at the place of transfer or to go back, which led to the filing of writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned orders requiring the petitioners to give options for absorption in the feeder cadre were contrary to the statutory rules governing transfer, particularly Rule 99.2 and 101. The court emphasized that the rules only contemplate loss of seniority and that the authorities cannot impose a condition of simultaneous reversion on the transferred employees.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the orders requiring the petitioners to give options for absorption in the feeder cadre and the applicability of the statutory rules governing transfer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the statutory rules, particularly Rule 99.2 and 101, govern the transfer of members of the Railway Protection Force and that the rules only contemplate loss of seniority, not reversion to a lower post. The court emphasized that there is no estoppel against the statute and that the efficacy of the rules cannot be extended or whittled down by executive orders or actions not supported by the statute.
Final Decision: The court allowed all the writ petitions and quashed the impugned orders requiring the petitioners to give options for absorption in the feeder cadre. The petitioners were entitled to costs.
1. List revised. None appeared for the petitioner. Sri Govind Saran, learned counsel for the respondents is present. I have perused the record and have also heard Sri Govind Saran at length.
2. These four writ petitions involve common question of fact and law and, therefore, are being considered and decided finally by this common judgment under the Rules of the Court at this stage as agreed by learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The Writ Petition No. 59860 of 2008 has been filed by Vinod Kumar, Head Constable appointed in Railway Protection Special Force. It is not in dispute that the recruitment and conditions of service of the members of Railway Protection Force are governed by Railway Production Force Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1957") and the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1987") framed thereunder and as amended from time to time. The petitioner was appointed as Constable on 14.02.1996. This appointment was made in Railway Protection Special Force, a force constituted under Act, 1957. This is admitted to the respondents also as is evident from para 9 of their counter affidavit. The petitioner sought transfer to Railway Protection Force, North Eastern Railway and the same was allowed vide order dated 23.04.2008 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Secretary/ABE Railway Board. The name of the petitioner, Vinod Kumar is at serial No. 78. The order of transfer states that "DG/RPF has approved the inter railway transfers of the following Head Constable/RPSF staff on bottom seniority and in the same rank of their batchmates (promoted under Rule 70 only). These transfers shall be on usual terms and conditions governing such inter railway transfer on request."
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order the Commanding Officer No. 2 Bn. RPSF, Gorakhpur issued an order dated 29.04.2008 which also contains the same language as mentioned above in respect to transfer and the name of the petitioner, Vinod Kumar is mentioned at Serial No. 15 thereat. The petitioner was consequently issued a movement order dated 09.05.2008 by Commander ('B' Coy 2 Bn. RPSF, Gorakhpur). The petitioner ultimately joined the duty of Head Constable in RPF pursuant to the aforesaid transfer. Thereafter the petitioner received a letter dated 14.09.2008 asking him to exercise option for absorption on the post of Constable in the feeder cadre at the place of transfer or to go back wherefrom he has come. A copy of the said letter dated 17.09.2008 issued by the Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Gorakhpur is on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The petitioner was informed that the aforesaid letter was issued in furtherance of the letter dated 04.08.2008 wherein a similar option was required to be given by all the persons who have come on transfer on request with the bottom seniority from Railway Protection Force from another zonal railway.
5. Aggrieved by these two orders which required the petitioner to give option for absorption of the feeder cadre, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
6. Writ Petition No. 55164 of 2008 has been filed by eight petitioners, where also the facts and documents as referred to above are similar and the details of the date of appointment and date of transfer are as under:
Sl. No.
Name of petitioner
Date of appointment as Constable
Serial number in the transfer order dated 23.04.2008
1.
Virendra Prasad
12.04.1996
77
2.
Hari Ram Singh
27.09.1996
93
3.
Ram Kesh
27.09.1996
96
4.
Umesh Pratap Singh
27.09.1996
106
5.
Shailendra Kumar Singh
27.09.1996
112
6.
Parashuram Chaudhary
27.09.1996
115
7.
Gangraj
27.09.1996
116
8.
Upendra Yadav
27.09.1996
108
7. Writ Petition No. 57659 of 2004 has been filed by thirty (30) petitioners, where also the facts and documents are similar as in Writ Petition No. 59860 of 2008 and the details of the date of appointment and date of transfer are as under:
Sl. No.
Name of petitioner
Date of appointment as Constable
Serial n
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
