SRI C. SUBBA RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal' for brevity, passed on 27.08.2001 in O.A. No. 365 of 2000. Petitioner further prayed that writ of mandamus be issued directing the opposite parties to regularise and/or confirm him in the grade and/or cadre in the existing scale of pay in the Construction Organisation or against the PCR (Permanent Construction Reserve) vacancies in the Construction Organisation in the existing grade or cadre, with the consequential benefits.

(2.) The admitted facts of the case may be stated, briefly, as follows : Petitioner was initially appointed as a Casual Supervising Ministry on 04.05.1976 under the I.O.W. (Construction), Jagadalpur and worked in various capacities. While working in the Construction Organisation, he was screened for absorption in Group-D post in Open Line. Having been found suitable in the screening, he was released in the screening on 19.07.1986 and was absorbed as Khalasi in the Steam Loco of Mechanical Department of Walt-air Division in the order dated 22.07.1986. The petitioner claims that by the time.he came to the Open Line, he was given promotion to the level of Supervising Ministry Grade-I on 16.05.1986. The petitioner claims that the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) required his services in the Construction Organisation and after working in Open Line from 22.07.1986 to 15.10.1986, he was again transferred back to the Construction Organisation. In the Construction Organisation he was given ad hoc promotion to the post of Supervising Ministry Grade-I w.e.f. 01.03.1987, after he cleared the trade test. According to the petitioner, he was further promoted to the I.O.W. Grade-III initially for a period of three months from 01.06.1989 to 01.09.1989. Later, in order dated 16.05.1990, h,e was promoted and allowed to continue as I.O.W. Grade-III. This promotion was also given after he cleared the trade test. The petitioner further pleads that in order to regularise the locally recruited Group C and D staff, the Ministry of Railways created PGR posts to the extent of 40% of the construction cadre as on 01.04.1973. This was reviewed on 01.04.1984, and again, has been increased to 60% of the construction cadre from 01.04.1988. Petitioner claims that several staff holding lien in Open Line have also been confirmed with retrospective effect terminating their lien in Open Line in Walter Division, but he has been treated in a discriminatory fashion in so far as he has never been confirmed in Construction Organisation. It is, further, pleaded that the petitioner has all along remained in Construction Organisation from 1976, except for about three months when he worked in Open Line, his juniors in the Open Line have acquired several promotions and he has also been discriminated against in the Open Line.

(3.) Opposite parties in their counter mainly resorted to the plea that the petitioner being a lien holder in the Open Line cannot claim absorption in Construction Organisation against the PCR post. They also stated that his claim for regularisation in different posts in Construction Organisation to which he was given ad hoc promotion from time to time is also barred by limitation because he has approached the Tribunal many years after such ad hoc appointment. The opposite parties plead that according to Rules, a lien holder from Open Line on secondment to the Construction Organisation is not eligible to get regularised in Construction Organisation. The opposite parties further plead that petitioner has to seek for his promotion in the Open Line to which cadre he belongs. The opposite parties further stated that a large number of persons working in the Construction Organisation have been given several ad hoc promotions from one post to the next higher post. This was reviewed by the General Manager and a policy decision was taken to review all cases, where more than two ad hoc promotions have been given. As the petitioner enjoyed more than two ad hoc in the Construction Organisation, his case was due to be reviewed for the purpose of his reversion in the Construction Organisation to a lower post. Faced with this prospect, the petitioner approached the Tribunal for his regular absorption in the posts in Construction Organisation to which he has been promoted on ad hoc basis from time to time.