N KAMAIYASWAMY Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench dated 23. 07. 2001 made in O. A. No. 1477 of 2000, confirming the order reverting him as Gangmate, the applicant has filed above writ petition.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner/applicant is briefly stated hereunder:

(3.) THE Railway Administration has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that promotions of the petitioner as Permanent Way Inspector Grade III, Grade II and Grade I were all on ad hoc basis and the writ petitioner still retained lien in the parent Department at Permanent Way Section, Palani and his seniority remained protected. From 1992 to 31. 03. 1999, he was worked as Permanent Way Inspector Grade-I and then relieved from Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. By an order dated 14. 04. 1999 of the 3rd respondent, he was mistakenly posted as Supervisor/works in the scale of Rs. 4500-7000 in Madurai Division as against the post equivalent to Permanent Way Maistry as there was no sanctioned cadre of Supervisor/works in Madurai Division. This bona fide mistake was duly noticed and informed by order dated 07. 10. 1999 of the third respondent. The 4th respondent passed an order dated 05. 11. 1999, rectifying the defect after assigning his correct position in the seniority list. Accordingly, the petitioner was posted as Gangmate in the scale of Rs. 3050-4590 in Permanent Way Section and was placed between Thangamuthu and Peya Thevar. Questioning the same, the petitioner has approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, after accepting the stand of the Department, dismissed his application, stating that the said order is perfectly in order and does not require any interference. The petitioner is aware of the fact that he is going out of cadre post to an ex-cadre post on deputation knowing well of its consequences. Any ad hoc promotion obtained by the petitioner in the ex-cadre post will not help him in any way to improve his position in the original cadre post. If the claim of the petitioner is accepted, it will prejudice other employees. The placement of the petitioner in the seniority list is in order. All the ad hoc promotions obtained elsewhere shall not alter the seniority list, where the petitioner has retained his lien.