O. A. No. 574/07. Case: 1. K. Kunjiraman Nambiar, 2. M. V. Narayanan, 3. Balakrishnan Nair, 4. C. Padmanabhan Nambiar Vs 1. Union of India Secretary to Department of Railway, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi, 2. General Manager, Southern Railway Chennai, 3. Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway Chennai, 4. Divisional Personnel Manager, Palakkad. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | O. A. No. 574/07 |
| Counsel | M. R. Hariraj, Suraj S., P. A. Kumaran, Vineetha B., Nithin S., K. M. Anthru |
| Judges | Dr. K. B. S. Rajan (Judicial Member) & K. Noorjehan (Administrative Member) |
| Issue | Service Laws |
| Judgement Date | July 24, 2009 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
K. Noorjehan (Administrative Member), (Ernakulam Bench)
-
The Applicants who are retired Railway employees, are aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents to recast their seniority and grant consequential benefits given to similarly placed employees
-
According to the applicants, the 1st applicant commenced service as Train Clerk on 16.12.1950, appointed as Assistant Station Master (ASM) on 6.7.1961, promoted to various grades of Station Master and retired from service on superannuation on 30.6.1987. Similarly, the 2nd applicant entered service as ASM on 17.12.1962 and retired on 30.11.1994, the 3rd applicant commenced service as ASM on 17.12.1962 and retired on 31.3.1997 and the 4th applicant commenced service as ASM on 16.4.1964 and retired on 15.5.2002. According to them, promotion upto Station Master Grade-I are based on divisional seniority. Many of the juniors of the applicants who were given accelerated promotions to various grades applying the principle of reservation in promotions continued in the grade despite applicants being promoted subsequently. This has affected the promotional avenues of the applicants. The seniority was not restored in each stage. The representations submitted by them were not looked into. Meanwhile, a few of the officers approached this Tribunal through O.A. 550/90 and connected case which were allowed holding that seniority vis-a-vis reserved and unreserved categories will be reflected in the promoted category also notwithstanding earlier promotion obtained on the basis of reservation. The respondents were directed to carry out the above directions within six months. The SLP filed by the respondents against the order was dismissed. Finding non compliance of the orders of the Tribunal in O.A. 550/90, a few of the applicants approached Tribunal and High Court of Kerala for fixing the seniority. They also filed contempt petition. Subsequently by order dated 30.9.2004 the respondents restored the seniority and consequential promotions to a few of those officers (Annexure A-3)
The applicants submitted representations for similar benefits on the ground that they are similarly situated which are still pending (A-4). Hence they filed this O.A. on the grounds that they are similarly situated like the officers in Annexure A-3, the 1st applicant is even senior, they are entitled to similar treatment, there was excess representation in the reserved categories at various levels which had adversely...
To continue reading
Request your trial