Repatriation to a parent cadre after assuming charge of a promoted post is a reversion at the employee's own instance, not a refusal of promotion, and requests to rejoin the promoted post after the selection panel's expiry are impermissible.

ORDER

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

Aggrieved by the rejection of his request for reconsideration to the post of Chief Law Assistant by the impugned order, dated 08.10.2024, the applicant has filed the OA for quashing of he said order and for a direction to the respondents to do the necessary to allow the applicant to re-join the promoted post since the repatriation was treated as a refusal of promotion and to pass such other orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper and thus to render justice.

2. The facts that are necessary for adjudication of the OA are as follows:

The applicant, while working as Chief Staff & Welfare Inspector in Level 6, applied pursuant to a notification dated 01.11.2019, whereby two Unreserved vacancies under the 60% promotional quota were notified for the post of Chief Law Assistant in Level 7. The notification stipulated a specific condition that the selected candidate should not seek retransfer to the parent cadre, as such retransfer was ordinarily not permitted. The written examination was conducted on 15.12.2021, followed by viva voce. The applicant was declared qualified and empanelled on 16.03.2022 for appointment and was accordingly posted as Chief Law Assistant in Level 7 on 08.04.2022. While working in the promoted post, the applicant faced acute family hardship due to serious illness of his spouse. Owing to her medical condition, the applicant submitted a request to the competent authority seeking repatriation to his parent cadre, i.e., Staff & Welfare Inspector at Integral Coach Factory. The said request was acceded to, and the repatriation was treated as refusal of promotion. Consequently, it was ordered that the pay drawn would not be protected, on the ground that seeking retransfer to the parent cadre was not permitted as per the conditions notified to the aspirants. Subsequently, after the applicant attended to his spouse’s medical needs, including subjecting her to surgery for her hearing problem, and after her convalescence, the applicant, upon medical advice and satisfaction that she could take care of herself and the wards, again opted for appointment to the post of Chief Law Assistant. It is pertinent to note that the said promoted post remained vacant. Accordingly, the applicant submitted a representation dated 10.07.2024 seeking permission to rejoin the promoted post from which he had earlier been repatriated. However, the 2nd respondent, instead of considering the applicant’s request in terms of Para 224 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM), rejected the same by a non-speaking order dated 08.10.2024, without adverting to the specific issue involved. In these circumstances, the applicant is left with no alternative remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Tribunal by filing the present Original Application, seeking appropriate intervention and justice.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the action of the respondents in refusing consent to enable the applicant to rejoin the promoted post, despite the fact that he had qualified in the written examination and was duly empanelled, is arbitrary and amounts to a colourable exercise of power, which is not sanctioned by law. He further submitted that the applicant had joined and officiated in the promoted post for more than ninety days. Owing to family problems, the applicant sought repatriation, which was accepted, and he rejoined his parent cadre on 20.07.2022 on the strength of refusal of promotion under Para 224 of the Indian Ra