CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated this the 10^th day of June, Two Thousand Twenty Five CORAM :

HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)

AND HON'BLE MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)

1. K. Rajkumar, S/o E. Kaniyappan, No.131/52E, T.V. Amman Kovil Street, Villivakkam, Chennai.

2. S. Saraswathy, D/o Sagadevan, No.42, Chennai Pattai Street, Viliivakkam, Chennai. 3. S. Senthil Kumaran, S/o M. Shanmugam, No.7/23, Chennai Pattai Street, Viliivakkam, Chennai.

4. T. Gayathri Geetham, D/o P. Thangavelu, New No.65 AB, Thanthoni Amman Koil Main Street, Villivakkam, Chennai.

5. T. Mohanavel, S/o A. Thulasigam, No.3/1, SNK Street, Suzpunal Karai, Erukkancherry, Chennai.

6. B. Venkatesan, S/o C.K. Baskar, Plot No.145A, Raghavendra Garden, Perumalpet, Veppampattu, Tiruvallur.

7. K. Vijaya Kumar, Door No.131/52E, Thiruveethi Amman Koil Street, Villivakkam, Chennai.

8. S. Bright Singh, S/o L. Sam Lawrence, Door No.9/3, Main Street, South Tirumalai Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai.

9. M. K. Rajesh Kumar, S/o P.Moni, Door No.469/4, ICF South Colony, ICF Colony (PO), Chennai.

10. S. Suresh Babu, S/o S. Sagadevan, Door No.7/5, Ponnankinaru Street, Villivakkam, Chennai. .. Applicants By Advocate M/s. V. Govardhanan Vs.

1. Union of India rep by The Secretary Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, Integral Coach Factory (ICF)

Chennai.

3. The Chief Personnel Officer, Integral Coach Factory (ICF)

Chennai .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. K. Rajendran SCGSC

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

“.......... to call for the entire records relating to the impugned order in No. PB/RR/39/Representations, dated 16.07.2014, nd passed by the 2 respondent and set aside the same and nd directing the 2 respondent to appoint the applicant herein as substitutes in Group D categories or to appoint in any suitable job in the ICF, Chennai at earliest and thus render justice”

2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants are as follows:

The Applicants successfully completed their Apprenticeship Training at the Integral Coach Factory (ICF), Chennai, across various trades during the period from 1999 to 2007. They are seeking appointment to any suitable position within ICF, Chennai. The Railway Board has already issued directions that Act Apprentices may be engaged as substitutes in Group D categories. Furthermore, a Petitions Committee of the Central Government, chaired by Shri Basudev Acharya, empowered the concerned General Managers to appoint Act Apprentices accordingly. In line with these directives, approximately 2,200 Act Apprentices, including around 1,000 from ICF, were appointed during the period 2005 to 2009. Subsequently, ICF, Chennai ceased to appoint course-completed Act Apprentices. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that trained apprentices are to be given preference over direct recruits. However, the

1st Respondent/Railway Board, in alignment with the 2nd Respondent/ICF, has failed to extend such preference to the Applicants, amounting to discriminatory treatment. While all other Railway Zones, production units, and workshops continue to engage their respective Act Apprentices in Group D categories, the 2nd Respondent/ICF has not adhered to the prevailing guidelines and has denied appointment to the Applicants. The Applicants have now endured over 14 years of hardship due to this inaction. They had earlier filed OA No. 310 of 2014 before this Tribunal, seeking a direction to the 2nd Respondent to appoint them. On 02.06.2014, this Tribunal directed the 2nd Respondent to consider their representation and communicate the outcome. To the Applicants' shock and dismay, their claim was subsequently rejected by the 2nd Respondent through an order dated 16.07.2014. The Applicants now approach this Tribunal once again, challenging the said rejection/impugned order.

3. The learned counsel for the Applicants primarily co