VIJAY KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Original Application, the Applicant has sought a direction to the Respondents to grant him proforma promotion as Carpenter Grade -II with effect from the year 1982 with all consequential benefits. He has also sought a direction to the Respondents to clarify as to in which capacity he was working in Bikaner Division at the time of his transfer to Delhi Division in the year 2003.

(2.) THE facts of the case, as stated by the Applicant, are that he joined the Railway service on 14.12.1974 as a Khalasi. Thereafter, he was appointed as Carpenter Grade -III w.e.f. 26.12.1975 in the scale of Rs. 200 -400 (revised to Rs. 950 -1500). As he was not being considered for regularization in spite of the fact that his juniors were regularized in service, he moved OA No. 329/1989 before this Tribunal for a direction to the Respondents to regularise him in service with all consequential benefits at par with his juniors. The said OA was decided vide Annexure A -1 order dated 31.07.1991 whereby this Tribunal directed the Respondents to consider his case for regularization of his service in the light of the fact that the persons who were taken in service in the same pay scale after him have been regularized. According to the Applicant, instead of regularizing him in service, the Respondents reverted him as Gangman in the lower scale in the Grade of Rs. 750 -940 w.e.f. 02.09.1991. He challenged the aforesaid order again before this Tribunal vide OA No. 2423/1991 and it was decided by Annexure A -2 order dated 21.08.1996 directing the Respondents to consider his representation. He again filed another OA No. 1124/1997 seeking a declaration that he was a regular Carpenter Grade -III with effect from 26.12.1975 as he has been continuously working in that post without any break. The said OA was decided vide Annexure A -3 order dated 25.01.1999 directing the Respondents to consider him for regularization as Carpenter on the assumption that he has been regularized as Gangman. As the Respondents failed to comply with the aforesaid directions, he filed Contempt Petition No. 320/1999. As the direction in the OA was complied with by the Respondents vide Annexure A -5 letter dated 30.11.1999, the CP was closed vide Annexure A -4 order dated 31.05.1999. While disposing of the aforesaid Contempt Petition, the Applicant was also given liberty to agitate his surviving grievance with regard to his date of regularization. According to the said letter, pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal dated 25.01.1999 in OA No. 1124/1997 (supra), the revised seniority list of Carpenter Grade -III in the scale of Rs. 3050 -4590 was issued. As per the seniority list annexed with the said letter, Applicant s name was at Sl. No. 3 and his date of initial appointment was 26.12.1975 but his posting in the post of Carpenter Grade -III has been shown as 03.01.1992 by promotion and his date of regularization was shown as 26.06.1999. According to him, the Respondents have shown him as regularized in service with effect from 26.06.1999 instead of 03.01.1992. He, therefore, made representations to the Respondents on 26.12.2001 and 17.06.2002 challenging the decision of the Respondents showing his date of regularization as Carpenter Grade -III with effect from 26.09.1999. As the Respondents did not consider his representations, he again filed OA No. 2962/2002 which was decided by Annexure A -6 order dated 13.12.2002 directing the Respondents to revise the aforesaid seniority list dated 16.05.2002. In compliance thereof, the Respondents issued Annexure A -7 combined seniority list of Carpenters Grade -III dated 11.02.2003. In the said seniority list, the Applicant s name was shown at Sl. No. 21 and his date of appointment has been again correctly shown as 26.12.1975. However, his date of working as Carpenter was shown as 03.01.1992 taking it as the date of promotion and his date of regularization was again shown as 26.06.1999. Applicant again submitted representation dated 16.05.2003 followed by reminders dated 15.09.2003 and 07.01.2004 but they were not considered. However, the Respondents issued Annexure A -8 revised seniority list dated 26.07.2004 wherein two dates of appointment of the Applicant had been shown, namely, 26.12.1975/31.12.1977 and his date of posting as 31.12.1977. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Applicant again made representation on 12.08.2004 to the Respondents to correct his date of appointment as Carpenter Grade -III as 26.12.1975 itself, which should also be treated as date of posting in the said post in which he has been continuously working since his appointment. As the Respondents kept silent in the matter, he again filed another OA No. 542/2005 seeking a direction to the Respondents for issuing a single date of appointment and his date of posting as Carpenter Grade -III. The said OA was decided vide Annexure A -9 order dated 21.07.2006 with a direction to the Respondents to issue a final seniority list of Carpenter Grade -III showing single date of appointment of the Applicant and clearly stating the date of his posting in the said post. In response to the aforesaid directions, the Respondents issued a fresh seniority list dated 03.01.2007 wherein his name appeared at Sl. No. 40. Although the Respondents correctly mentioned his date of appointment as Carpenter Grade -III as 26.12.1975, they again mentioned as 03.01.1992 as his date of promotion in Grade -III.

(3.) IN this Original Application, in view of the aforesaid admitted fact that his date of appointment as Carpenter Grade -III was 26.12.1975, he sought a direction to the effect that his next promotion as Grade -III shall be from the year 1982. According to him, neither the North Western Railway nor the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House has considered this aspect. He has also stated that in spite of the aforesaid consecutive findings of this Tribunal, even in the seniority list of Carpenter Grade -I, his date of promotion as Carpenter Grade -III has been shown as 03.01.1992 on the basis of which he has been promoted as Carpenter Grade -I with effect from 17.05.2012. His contention is that after the Respondents had considered his actual date of appointment as Carpenter Grade -III w.e.f. 26.12.1975, his promotion to the posts of Carpenter Grade -II and Carpenter Grade -I would have been from earlier dates.