(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J))

The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative

Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking for the following relief:

“To set aside the Impugned Orders No.P(GS)535/XII/OS/20% LDCE Dated

10.06.2014 & 22.07.2013 (Annexure A-1, Pages-6-7) of the Chief

Personnel Officer, the 2^nd respondent and to direct the respondents to

modify the Promotional order No.P(GS)312/XII/11 dated 25.04.2014

(Annexure A-2, Pages-8-9) of the Chief Personnel Officer, the 2^nd

respondent by placing the name of the applicant above the employees

selected against 20% LDCE Quota and thus render justice.”

2.

The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are as follows:

The applicant is working as Office Superintendent in the respondent

department. He was promoted from the post of Senior Clerk to Office

Superintendent in Pay Band Rs.9300-34800 +GP Rs.4200 against cadre

restructuring vacancies w.e.f 01.11.2013, vide order dated 25.04.2014. The

grievance of the applicant is he was placed below the employees selected

against 20% LDCE quota and joined the post on 12.11.2013, vide promotion

order dated 25.04.2014. When he made representations dated 21.05.2014

& 03.07.2014 to place him above the employees selected through LDCE, the

same was rejected by the 2^nd respondent, vide orders dated 10.06.2014 &

22.07.2014 stating that the said placement was done in terms of Para 4.1 of

Railway Board's letter dated 08.10.2013 & Para 3 of CPO/MAS letter dated

11.11.2013. The contention of the applicant is that the respondents have

misinterpreted Para 4.1 of the Railway Board letter dated 08.10.2013

whereas the said Para 4.1 clearly states that after filling up of the Cadre

restructuring vacancies, normal vacancies existing on 01.11.2013 and the

3

resultant vacancies arising out of restructuring should be filled up from the

panels approved on or before 01.11.2013 and current on that date. Further

Para 4.4. of the Railway Board letter dated 08.10.2013 states that all

vacancies (including chain/resultant vacancies) arising purely due to this

cadre restructuring should be filled up by senior employees who should given

benefit of the promotion w.e.f 01.11.2013 whereas for the normal vacancies

existing on 01.11.2013, junior employees should be posted by modified

selection procedure but they will get promotion and higher pay from the date

of taking over the posts as per normal rules. Thus the special benefit of the

promotion w.e.f 01.11.2013 is available only for vacancies arising out of

cadre restructuring and for other vacancies, the normal rules of prospective

promotion from the date of filling up of vacancy will apply. The employees

selected against LDCE quota are junior employees and also even from the

post of Junior Clerks and posted to the working post only on 11.11.2013,

vide letter dated 11.11.2013 and joined duty on 12.11.2013 and their pay in

the higher post of Office Superintendent was fixed w.e.f 12.11.2013 and

their promotion is to be treated against normal or resultant vacancies

existing on or after 01.11.2013 and their postings cannot be treated as

against Cadre Restructuring Vacancies and hence they have to be placed

below the employees selected as Office Superintendent against the Cadre

Restructuring vacancies w.e.f 01.11.2013 and therefore the action of the

respondents is illegal and against the Railway Board letter dated 08.10.2013.

Hence the present OA.

3.

After notice the respondents have entered appearance through their

counsel and filed their counter and vehemently opposed the claim of the

applicant on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. They have also

stated that the applicant was initially appointed as Temporary Office Clerk

4

w.e.f 22.08.1986 at the Office of the Chief Works Manager/Perambur,

promoted as adhoc Senior Clerk w.e.f 23.09.1988 and regularized on

13.12.1988. The applicant opted for Inter