UNION OF INDIA Vs. KUMARI AMRIT KAUR RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Railway has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order dated 20th December, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur whereby the Original Application filed by the present respondent No. 1 has been allowed and the direction has been issued to place her as senior clerk w. e. f. 4th April, 1989 in the seniority list of senior clerks.

(2.) THE controversy arises thus: (a) Kumari Amrit Kaur Rai- respondent No. 1 (for short, `the employee') was appointed on 6th November, 1986 as Junior Clerk, on compassionate ground in Kota Division of Western Railway. (b) Railway Recruitment Board, in the year 1988, held the examination for direct recruitment of senior clerks against the service graduates quota. THE employee appeared in the said examination and was declared successful. (c) On 15th December, 1988, a list of successful candidates from amongst the service graduates of Kota division for recruitment to Class III posts (senior clerk) was published. THE name of the employee appeared at Item No. 16 of the said list. By the said list, the selected candidates were asked to give three options for posting in Ajmer, Jaipur, Kota, Ratlam, Jodhpur and Bikaner Divisions/units. (d) THE employee sent communication to the Divisional Railway Manager, Kota on 16th December, 1988 indicating her option for Kota division for posting and her lien. (e) By the office order dated 3rd April, 1989, the DRM, Kota issued an office order appointing nineteen persons in Class III service-senior clerks in the scale of 1200-2040 (RP)- Kota Division. In so far as the employee was concerned, she was posted in the office of Loco Foreman, Kota. (f) On 4th April, 1989, the employee sent a representation to the Division Railway Manager (E), Western Railway, Kota stating therein that her group be changed from Mechanic, Operating, Commercial and General (for short, `mocg') to Works, Budget, Stores and Medical (for short, `wems' ). She set out the reasons for change of her group. (g) On 18th April, 1989, the office of Chief Engineer (Survey & Civil), Church Gate, Bombay sent a communication to the Deputy Chief Engineer (S & C) Kota that the employee may be retained as senior clerk in his office by upgrading the post of junior clerk and the Divisional Railway Manager (E), Kota be asked to maintain her lien as senior clerk on his Division. THE Division Railway Manager (E), Kota was sent copy of the communication. (h) THE Deputy Chief Engineer (S & C), Kota issued an order being office order No. 498 dated 20th April, 1989 that the employee was being posted in his office in place of the office of Loco Foreman, Kota and that the said order shall be effective from 4th April, 1989. Thus, the employee was posted to work as senior clerk in the office of the Deputy Chief Engineer (S & C), Kota. (i) On 29th September, 1989, the Divisional Office, Kota issued an office order posting inter-alia, the employee in the office of Deputy Chief Engineer (S & C), Kota as senior clerk in the pay scale of 1200-2040 (RP ). (j) THE office of the Divisional Railway Manager issued a seniority list of senior clerks in the scale of 1200-2040 (RP) on 17th July, 1991/22nd July, 1991 wherein the name of the employee was shown at 64 indicating her joining of duty on the working post of senior clerk on 2nd September, 1989. (k) THE employee was up-set by the said seniority list and made representations. When nothing was heard from the authorities, she approached the Central Administrative Tribunal praying therein that the seniority list dated 17th July, 1991/22nd July, 1991 be quashed and set aside and that the Railway Authorities may be directed to issue fresh seniority list by showing her name below Smt. Pushplata Dubey and above Mangi Lal whose names find place at Sr. Nos. 9 and 10 in the seniority list of senior clerks.

(3.) THAT the employee was selected for Class III post (senior clerk) by the Railway Recruitment Board for direct recruitment against service graduates quota vide select list dated 15th December, 1988 is not in dispute. THAT the Mechanical, Operation, Commercial General (MOCG) and Works, Budget, Stores and Medical (WBSM) are different groups is an admitted position. THAT the office of Loco Foreman falls in MOCG group and the office of the Deputy Chief Engineer (S & C) falls in WBSM is also not in dispute. THAT vide office order dated 3rd April, 1989 issued by the Divisional Office, Kota, the employee was posted in the office of Loco Foreman i. e. MOCG group is not in dispute. THAT on 4th April, 1989 the applicant made a representation to the Divisional Railway Manager, Kota Division for change of her group from MOCG to WBSM is also an admitted position. THAT the Chief Engineer (S & C), Bombay asked the Deputy Chief Engineer (S & C), Kota by the letter dated 18th April, 1989 to retain the employee as senior clerk in the pay scale of 1200-2040 (RP) in that office by up-grading the post of senior clerk is not in dispute. THAT the Divisional Railway Manager (E), Kota was asked by the said letter to maintain the lien of the employee as senior clerk in the scale of 1200-2040 (RP) on his Division is again an admitted position. THAT on 20. 4. 1989, the Deputy Chief Engineer (S & C), Kota issued an order posting the employee a senior clerk in his office in place of office of Loco Foreman, Kota is not disputed, and that the said order was effected from 4th April, 1989 is an admitted position. THAT on 29th September, 1989, the Divisional Office, Kota issued an order posting the employee in the office of the Deputy Chief Engineer (S & C), Kota is undisputed. In the back-drop of the afore-noticed admitted factual position, the question that falls for our determination is: is the date of joining on the post of Senior Clerk by the employee 4th April, 1989 or 29th September, 1989.