P.GOVINDAN NAMBOOTHIRI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the applicants before the Tribunal who impugn orders rejecting their claims for retention in the MEMU-Sheds (Mainline Electrical Multi Unit) at Quilon and Palakkad. They were promoted from the post they held at the MEMU-Sheds and on pinpointing of the specific post in which they have to join; where directed to be repatriated to Erode within Salem Division from where they were originally appointed to the MEMU-Sheds in Kerala. The Tribunal by the impugned order found that the applicants were only on deputation and this was following a well meaning measure on the part of the Railways to enable Keralites to have short duration postings within the native state. A decision of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal was also noticed which directed identification of the promotion post for the purpose of enabling the Juniors in the other division to avail of the same benefits, the petitioners herein obtained, of short duration home tenure.

(2.) The petitioners assert that there was no deputation and their selection was to a specific cadre which now stands closed (meaning a distinct cadre created with determination of inter-se seniority of those belonging to that particular cadre and separate avenues for promotion) and hence there cannot be any repatriation. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in O.P.(CAT)232/2018 and 295 of 2019 that the nature of the appointments to the MEMU-Sheds at Quilon and Palakkad substantially differed and hence the issue may be considered separately. We have to immediately notice that no such distinction was argued before the Tribunal as is seen from the impugned order. Nevertheless we agreed to the suggestion of the Counsel in order to not shut out any legal argument.

(3.) Sri T.C Govindaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in OP(CAT) No. 8 of 2019, who are posted at the MEMU-Shed at Quilon points out the manner in which their selection was carried out as per Annexure A2 to A4 produced in the Original Application. It is contended that options were invited from employees and after due selection to various posts available at the MEMU-Shed Quilon, they were appointed, initially retaining their lien in the parent division. However, retention of such lien was to continue for two years or till such time the cadre is closed; the last expression meaning the formation of a specific cadre with promotional avenues within the Division itself. While they were continuing at the MEMU-Sheds they were promoted as per Annexure A5 and subject to pinpointing of posts they were granted upgradation/promotion on an 'as is where is basis'. While they were so continuing Annexures A1 and A2 were issued pinpointing their promotional posts in Erode coming within Salem Division and directing repatriation to their parent Division. It is also argued that if they do not join the promotional posts the only consequence is invocation of Rule 224 of IREM and Paragraph 13(i) of Master Circular No.31. This would result in their waiving their right for consideration of promotion for a period of one year and nothing more. Annexure A7 is also pointed out to argue that there is a cadre closure directed by that communication and the persons who were selected and appointed to the MEMU-Sheds were directed to exercise option to return to their parent cadre before 27.04.2017. The petitioners have not exercised such option and hence they have to be continued in the post. It is also submitted that there was no stay granted in the Original application and hence the respondents repatriated the petitioners by order produced additionally as Annexure A10 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal refused to stay such proceedings and the petitioners approached this Court wherein there was a stay granted. There is also a distinction drawn of MEMU- Sheds and Trip-Sheds to point out that the cadre closure is effected for the MEMU-Sheds alone.