JUDGMENT :

Prakash Padia, J.

Order on Delay Condonation Application No.Nil of 2021

1. Heard.

2. Cause shown for the delay in filing the review application is sufficient. The delay is condoned.

3. The application is allowed.

Order on Review Application No.379 of 2021

1. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Devendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Union of India.

2. This application seeks review of the judgment and order dated 16.06.2021 passed in Writ A No. 5939 of 2021 (Manoj Kumar Mahto and 8 Others vs. Union of India and 6 Others) whereby the petitioners petition was dismissed.

3. Facts in brief are that an Original Application was filed by the petitioners before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad being Original Application No. 0642 of 2019. Original Application was filed challenging the order dated 27.12.2018 endorse vide letter dated 16.05.2019 issued by the Chief Crew Controller (Operating), East Central Railway, Mugalsarai and Gaya. The directions were also sought for excluding the name of the petitioners from pre-promotion training list for the post of Loco Pilot (Goods) dated 3.06.2019 and that they (the applicants) be continued as Loco Pilot (shunting).

4. The case of the petitioners before the Central Administrative Tribunal was that there exists a promotional channel for the Assistant Loco Pilot/Shunters/ET to post of Loco Pilot (Goods). The petitioners being within the zone of consideration were found suitable for pre-promotion training, a pre-requisite for promotion vide order Estb. No. B63/2019 dated 3.6.2019. Petitioners tendered their collective refusal which was tentatively accepted by Sr. DEE (Ops)/DMEs/Power. However, the Authority senior in hierarchy, i.e., Principal Chief Electrical Engineer, East Central Railway vide Communication DO.No. ECR/ELE/OP/370 dated 27.12.2018 advised the Divisional Railway Manager, Mugalsarai Division, East Central Railway to withdraw the acceptance of refusal and the incumbents be immediately sent for next pre-promotional training programme at their associated training centers. The said DO resulted in issuance of communication dated 16.5.2019.

5. The following findings were recorded by the Central Administrative Tribunal while rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners:-

“5. In our considered view, the impugned communication is based on sound reason of serving larger public interest and does not call for any interference. There is more than adequate justification for the decision to post the applicants on operational duties after prescribed training. The applicants have enjoyed the benefit of choosing to remain on the post of their choice for long enough and do not deserve the luxury of this choice throughout their service career. A public utility like the railways is to run in the interest of the public, and this requires effective manning of operational posts. On the other hand, the applicants' demand is purely confined to their own personal comfort and convenience. Moreover, the reasons given by the applicants for refusal of promotion are vague and do not justify a sympathetic consideration. It is ironic that the applicants have chosen to agitate their promotion and not a denial of it.”

6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the petitioners have preferred the writ petition before this Court being Writ A No. 5939 of 2021 Manoj Kumar Mahto And 8 Others vs. Union of India And 6 Others). The writ petition was dismissed while recording the following findings:-

“Though submissions similar to those before the Tribunal are reiterated; however, in absence of any Rules or Regulations facilitating the refusal to follow the departmental orders issued by the superior Authorities, being commended at we are not inclined to cause any indulgence with the findings by Tribunal that in public interest the respondents were justified in recalling of the permission by authority to refuse promotion.”

7. In