S RAGHURAMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 22-11-2001 passed by the central Administrative Tribunal (in short'the Tribunal'), dismissing the original application, the original applicant has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) THE writ petitioner, who was working as Station Master in the Chennai Division of Southern Railways in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000, was found to be medically unfit on 3-2-1997 and, therefore, he was offered an alternative employment as Head Train Clerk in the same pay scale of rs. 5000-8000. THE writ petitioner, however, did not accept the offer. THEreafter, he was offered the employment of Clerk Grade in the Integral Coach factory (in short ICF) with a condition that he will be placed at last in the seniority list of Clerk Grade.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the tribunal has erred in not considering the plea of the writ petitioner that he is entitled to the benefits of grade protection and consequential benefits including seniority in terms of Sec. 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Paragraph 1304 read with Paragraph 1314 (a) and (c) of the Indian Railways manual provides for an alternative employment in the equivalent grade even after accepting an offer made in the lower grade either permanently or temporarily even by creating a supernumerary post. Paragraph 1310 of the Indian Railways manual enables the petitioner to decline an offer duly reserving his right seek alternative employment in equivalent grade. When paragraph 1306 (6) of the indian Railways Manual provides for making an option for alternative employment in a specific category, the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner had joined the post in the ICF on his own volition and therefore it was not open to him to claim protection of his pay and seniority is unsustainable. Further, the tribunal went wrong in holding that the petitioner was accommodated in the ICF by way of inter-railway transfer since there was no post other than Head Train clerk was available is untenable since even after declining to accept the offer as Head Train Clerk, the petitioner was still holding the right for alternative employment in equivalent grade, for such an alternative employment there is no need for existence of a vacancy since the offer may be against a permanent or temporary even by creating supernumerary and a transfer at request could be made only when the petitioner was holding a post in the office clerk category at the time of making such request.