ORDER

Per: Dinesh Sharma, Member (A) In this Original Application the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“a) The impugned provisional seniority list dated 7.10.2010 & seniority list dated 17.10.2011 (2) may be quashed and set aside. The applicant may be granted seniority above Anuja Gupta and all consequential benefits including consideration for promotion when any of his juniors have been considered.

b) The select list dated 4.6.2010 (annexure- A/3) for promotion on the post of Health Inspector Grade pay 4600 may be quashed and set aside.

c) Any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed in favor of the applicant.”

2. The case of the applicant is that he was appointed as Health Inspector, on his selection to this post by Railway Recruitment Board for Southern Railway, on 03/01/2008.

While working in Southern Railway he applied for the same post in North Western Railway and was declared successful by order dated 19/11/2008. He was relieved by the Southern Railway for joining the North Western Railway (NWR) by order dated 30.01.2009/05.02.2009. He joined the NWR HQrs on 06/02/2009, and after awaiting posting, was directed to join at Ajmer Division, where he joined on 12/03/2009. The applicant is aggrieved by the seniority list of Health Inspectors dated 07/10/2002, in which his name has been put below the private respondents (No. 3 and 4). The applicant has represented against this, claiming seniority on the basis of his initial appointment in the Southern Railways. He claims that even if his transfer to the NWR was to be considered at his own request, he should have been given bottom seniority on the basis of his date of (3) transfer order (30/01/2009) from the Southern Railways, and in the worst case from the date of his joining (12/03/2009). Putting him below the private respondents who joined the service after him (Anuja Gupta) or came to the NWR on mutual transfer after him (Rajkumar Meena), is against the rules (para 310 of IREM Part-I). In summary, the applicant has challenged treating his appointment in NWR as fresh appointment and not as an appointment on transfer from the Southern Railways.

3. The respondents have denied the claim. In the reply and in an additional affidavit filed by the official respondents, they have stated that the applicant has been given seniority in the NWR in accordance with the rules under which seniority is accorded, to new appointees on the basis of their merit position in their selection by the RRB.

The applicant had admittedly applied again for the post advertised in the NWR, and was selected following all the selection procedure by the RRB of the NWR and his joining the NWR, following this selection cannot be treated as a transfer. It is stated that the use of the word “transfer” in the applicant’s relieving orders from the Southern Railways cannot be explained by them (the respondent NWR) since the Southern Railways have not been made a party in this OA. The reply categorically states that the seniority has been assigned strictly as per IREM 310 of the IREM part I. While (4) respondent no. 4, Anuja Gupta is senior to the applicant in the merit order of selection, Shri Raj Kumar Meena, respondent No. 3 (who came on request of mutual transfer with Rupesh Kumar) has been given the position of Rupesh Kumar Singh, who is also senior to the applicant in the merit order.

4. No rejoinder has been filed. The matter was finally heard on 07.03.2022. The learned counsel for the applicant argued in favour of treating his appointment in the NWR as one of transfer. He drew our attention to his relieving orders dated 05/02/2009 and 06/02/2009 (Annexure-A/5 and A/6), where the words “inter Railway one way transfer” is used.

He also pointed out that the applicant’s appointment order dated 03/06/2009 (Annexure-A/8) specifically mentions that there is no need for checking his service certificates as h