UNION OF INDIA Vs. S GNANAVELRAJN JUNIOR ACCOUNTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THE Railway Administration is before us challenging the order dated 26. 7. 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O. A. No. 1053 of 2004. The first respondent was originally the applicant in the said O. A and he had claimed that his request for promotion to Accounts Assistant was denied to him. His contention was that he had been initially appointed as Junior Accounts Assistant (JAA) in the Office of the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, South Central Railway, Secundrabad with effect from 2. 6. 1997. After completion of three years of continuous service, he was promoted as Accounts Assistant in the scale of pay of Rs. 5000-8000/- (revised as Rs. 5500-9000) with effect from 2. 6. 2000. He had made a request for transfer to Southern Railway and was transferred and posted as Junior Accounts Assistant on 28. 1. 2002 in the scale of pay of Rs. 4000-6000/-, however having obtained pay protection for the last pay drawn. On completion of three years as Junior Accounts Assistant, he had requested for promotion as Accounts Assistant, but it was denied on the ground that since he had come on request transfer, he was placed lowest in the order of seniority and he was not entitled to be promoted. The Tribunal upheld the contention of the petitioner and found that the request transfer would have a bearing only on the seniority issue and no other disqualification would be attached to such a person on transfer. The Central Administrative Tribunal Bench further held that the applicant was admittedly working as Accounts Assistant for 1-1/2 years and had been posted to the Southern Railway in the lowest grade. It took note of the fact that the service rendered in the lower grade for three years could not be given up and when the vacancies in the post of Accounts Assistant reserved for SC/st arose, the petitioner, as a SC employee for whom vacancy was available in the office, was entitled to be promoted. The Railway administration has challenged the order of the Tribunal by a contention that the Railway Board had clarified that there could be no weightage for the past services rendered in a given post, if an employee came on voluntary service to any other region and promotion could not have been granted merely by taking note of the number of years of service in the Accounts Assistant Grade.

(3.) THE respondent supports the finding of the Tribunal and placed reliance on the decision in Union of India Vs. V. N. Bhat reported in 2004 AIR SCW 1399 which lays down that the request transferee only loses seniority and not other benefits flowing from past service. The decision has been rendered with reference to a case of persons claiming time bound promotion and a scheme promotion by the Postal Department who had rendered 16/26 years of service without obtaining any promotion. The Supreme Court had categorically laid down that the promotion has to be made only on the basis of length of service and on the basis of seniority and that the request transferee who had rendered a requisite number of service in the parent department could not be deprived of being considered for promotion to the higher post if he is eligible therefor. The case in hand is comprehensively covered by the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. We find no error in the approach of the legal reasoning of the Central Administrative Tribunal whose order is impugned in this writ petition.