O.A. No. 571/2008. Case: 1. B. Radhakrishnan Pillai, Passenger Guard (Adhoc), Southern Railway, Palakkad, 2. R. Krishnanakumar, Passenger Guard (Adhoc), Southern Railway, Palakkad, 3. S. Afsar Ahamed, Passenger Guard (Adhoc), Southern Railway, Palakkad, 4. M. Murali, Passenger Guard (Adhoc), Southern Railway, Palakkad, 5. K. Chandran, Passenger Guard (Adhoc), Southern Railway, Palakkad, 6. N. Ganesan, Passenger Guard (Adhoc), Southern Railway, Palakkad, 7. R. Prasad, Passenger Guard (Adhoc), Southern Railway, Palakkad Vs 1. Union of India, Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi, 2. General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras, 3. Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Madras, 4. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Palghat, 5. Railway Board, Secretary, New Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A. No. 571/2008 |
| Counsel | M. R. Hariraj, Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil |
| Judges | Dr. K. B. S. Rajan (Judicial Member) & K. George Joseph (Administrative Member) |
| Issue | Service Laws |
| Judgement Date | October 07, 2009 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
K. George Joseph (Administrative Member), (Ernakulam Bench)
-
In this O.A., the applicants challenge the Annexure A5 order by which the adhoc promotions given to them as Passenger Guards was discontinued.
-
The brief facts of the case are the following:
-
The post of Passenger Guard is classified in the 'safety category'. Promotion to this cadre is done on the basis of selection from the combined Divisional seniority list of Senior Good Guards and Goods Guards. Efforts of the Railway Administration to fill up vacancies in the cadre of Passenger Guards were blocked by litigation. As the Salem Division was being created carving out certain areas from the Palghat Division, there was a proposal for pre-closure of the cadre of Passenger Guards. Existence of large number of vacancies in Passenger Guards was affecting the running of trains adversely. Under these circumstances 64 vacancies in the then Palghat Division were filled up on adhoc basis for 3 months, as approved by the Southern Railway Headquarters Office vide Annexure A6 order dated 28.3.08. The adhoc promotions were discontinued on 24.9.2008 on the expiry of 3 months. Hence this O.A.
-
The applicants contend that they should have been promoted as Passenger Guards on regular basis. The order reverting them from Passenger Guards on adhoc promotions to Senior Goods Guards and Goods Guards is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and discriminatory. The applicants are qualified and eligible for promotion to Passenger Guards on regular basis. The 4th respondent is indifferent to make regular promotions. Pendency of litigation, wherein appointment of certain Goods Guards is under challenge is merely an ostensible reason for keeping the regular selection in abeyance.
-
The respondents contested the O.A. The adhoc promotions were given to the applicants only for a limited period of 3 months. Following the bifurcation of Salem and Palghat Divisions on 1.11.07, the cadre of Passenger Guards was closed on 31.5.08. Reservation rules apply to promotion to Passenger Guards. The Railway Administration was not able to conduct regular selection to fill up the 64 vacancies of Passenger Guards on account of pending Court cases. As per the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, adhoc promotion should be avoided as far as possible and in exigencies it should be resorted to only for a short duration of 3 to 4 months. The vacancies falling in Palghat and Salem Divisions are to be filled by the respective...
To continue reading
Request your trial