MANJU MISRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow dated 11.04.2001 whereby the OA which was registered as TA No. 1949 of 1997 has been dismissed. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the impugned orders dated 12.09.1985 and 20.09.1985 regarding the reversion of the petitioner. The petitioner further seeks quashing of the seniority list dated 27.09.1984 and 11.01.1985 and has prayed for mandate to opposite parties to maintain the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as per letter dated 02.07.1979.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 alongwith 40 others were selected by the Railway Service Commission Board, Allahabad for the post of Enquiry-Cum-Reservation Clerk in short 'ERC' in the grade of Rs. 330-560/-. The selected candidates were sent for induction training at Chandausi Training Centre between 21.08.1978 to 18.10.1978. On successful completion of the training in view of the Rule 303 Clause-A of Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM-vol-I), the petitioner was placed at serial No. 10 whereas respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were placed at serial Nos. 19 and 20 respectively. The petitioner has contended that the seniority of all ERCs was maintained at zonal level. The petitioner was posted at Delhi railway station on the post of ERC while respondent Nos. 4 and 5 joined at NDCR, New Delhi and thus the petitioner and the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 were posted in one zonal railway. Due to some personal reasons the petitioner sought her transfer from Delhi to Lucknow and was transferred in view of her request vide order dated 12.12.1979. Pursuant to the order, the petitioner joined at Lucknow on 01.01.1980. The petitioner has further contended that the post of ERC grade-III in pay scale 330-560/- was restructured as ERC grade-II in pay scale 425-640/- vide letter of General Manger (P) Northern Railway dated 11.01.1985 and the petitioner was also placed in the 425-640 grade after the transfer of the petitioner from Delhi to Lucknow. The seniority list of ERCs was published on 27.09.1984 in which the petitioner was placed at serial No. 549 while respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were placed at serial Nos. 396 and 397 respectively. It has been contended that seniority list shows that there was a common cadre of all ERCs at zonal level and the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was wrongly decided. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 later on pleaded that since the petitioner was transferred on her own request as such her seniority was to be fixed at the bottom of the cadre, but the same plea is not sustainable because there was one seniority list based on zonal level and even on the transfer of the petitioner on request her seniority could not have been affected. It is also stated that on 29.01.1985. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 also managed their transfer from NDCR Delhi to Lucknow and another seniority list dated 11.01.1985 was prepared but was not published or circulated due to restructuring of the cadre from grade-III to grade-II. In this list also petitioner was placed in the bottom at serial No. 227 whereas respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were shown at serial No. 99 and 100. The petitioner further contends that the seniority of ERCs was maintained on the zonal level and it was a centralized post under the direct control of General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi and vide order dated 19.08.1985, the cadre was decentralized at divisional railway level and was placed under the direct administrative control of Divisional Railway Manager. Before 19.08.1985 the petitioner and also respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had been transferred to Lucknow Division and seniority on the basis of merit after training was maintained. Copy of the merit list of 02.01.1979 has been filed as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition. Subsequently, vide order dated 12.09.1985, the petitioner was reverted to grade-III, therefore, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 5277 of 1985 in this Court in which an interim order was passed and both the orders of reversion were stayed. However, due to creation of Central Administrative Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred to Lucknow Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal and was re-numbered as TA No. 1949 of 1987. In the meantime, on the basis of wrong seniority list, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were promoted as Supervisors in 1994 while the petitioner was promoted as Supervisor on 18.09.2000. The Central Administrative Tribunal vide impugned order dated 11.04.2001 has dismissed the original application of the petitioner. It has been contended that the Central Administrative Tribunal has wrongly interpreted Rule 311 & 312 Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) Vol. I. It has been stated that the note 1 of Rule 312 was inserted by Railway Board on 21.01.1986. Therefore, the seniority before 21.01.1986 could not have been disturbed due to insertion of the said note to Rule 312. Further contention of the petitioner is that the Central Administrative Tribunal has wrongly relied upon circular dated 04.06.1979. Copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition because the Circular refers to the employees who have been transferred from one seniority cadre unit to another seniority cadre unit and the same is not applicable in the petitioner's matter as the petitioner's transfer was not from one seniority unit to another seniority unit and the seniority at the relevant time was maintained at the zonal level. It has also been pleaded that the circular cannot override the provisions of rules.

(3.) The respondents have contended that when the petitioner was appointed in the Northern Railway, Delhi Zone had seven Divisional Headquarter including Delhi Division and Lucknow Division and the seniority list of the ECRs employees working in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560/- and below were maintained at their respective divisional levels. Likewise, the seniority of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was also maintained by the Delhi Division. It has been contended that the petitioner was transferred from Delhi Division to Lucknow Division of Northern Railway in 1979 on her request which was conditionally allowed vide order dated 12.12.1979. The transfer order dated 12.12.1979 of the petitioner specifically mentions that she was being transferred to Lucknow on her request at the bottom seniority under the existing rules. The petitioner has deliberately avoided to file copy of the transfer order dated 12.12.1979. Reliance has been placed on the instructions issued in the light of letter of Ministry of Railways, in the matter of inter-divisional and inter-railway transfers on request. Further the respondents have placed reliance on Master Circular No. 24 of the Northern Railway in respect of transfers of non-gazetted servants and emphasis has been laid on para Nos. 5, 5.1 and 5.2 of the said Master Circular. It has also been contended that the unit of seniority has been clarified in para No. 5.1 of the said Master Circular which means unit of seniority or another Division. Therefore, in view of para No. 5.2 of the Master Circular, the petitioner was rightly placed at the bottom of the seniority on request transfer from one seniority unit to another unit or as per Para No. 5.1, one Division to another Division of the same Railway. The respondents have also placed reliance on the instructions of Railway Board dated 31.03.1971 The respondents have contended that the petitioner was transferred on her request from Delhi Division which is a separate seniority unit to Lucknow Division which was also having separate seniority list. As such on the basis of instructions to Ministry of Railways issued on 19.03.1971 and copy of the printed serial [No. 5414 dated 27.08.1971] she was rightly assigned bottom seniority at the joining at new seniority unit. The respondents have further stated that the post of ERCs was a divisional controlled post as is clear from General Manager (P) letter dated 18.07.1978 according to which ERCs in grade of Rs. 330-560/- were under the control of the division. Note 1 of para 312 of the IREM Vol. I which was added on 21.01.1986 was not a new provision as the same existed earlier also in the form of instructions of Ministry of Railway dated 31.03.1971 and also Para 2 in printed serial No. 5414 dated 27.08.1971. It has been submitted that reversion of the petitioner was not a punishment, she was reverted because she lost her seniority due to request transfer from Delhi Division to Lucknow Division. Respondents have further contended that the posts of ERCs in the grade of Rs. 425-640/- were transferred/diverted from one Division to another Division vide letter dated 11.01.1985 and the petitioner who was working in the grade of Rs. 330-560/- under the control of Divisional Railways was appointed to officiate as ERCs in the grade of Rs. 425-640/- as a temporary measure. Subsequently vide order dated 12.09.1985 the post of ERCs in the grade of Rs. 425-640/- were reverted back to their respective Divisions and, therefore, order dated 12.09.1985 was issued, petitioner and similarly placed persons were reverted back to their substantive grade. No junior to the petitioner continued in the grade of Rs. 425-640/-. There is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order of the Tribunal.