U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. Roop Chand & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4369/1996
Petitioner: U.O.I. & Ors.
Respondent: Roop Chand & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4369/1996
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 26, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Constitution
Articles 14, 16 – Interse seniority – Earlier, the posts of Station Master, Yard Master and Traffic Inspector in same grade – Combined seniority list maintained – In 1983, cadre re-structured and Station Master and Yard Master put in one cadre and scale upgraded – Traffic Inspector in different cadre and continued in lower grade – Interse seniority decided on basis of entry into higher grade – Nothing to show if option to come to the upgraded cadre was given to Traffic Inspectors as contended nor such stand taken before Tribunal. Held that direction by Tribunal to prepare seniority list of all 3 posts has no infirmity. Appeal dismissed. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Union of India is in appeal against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 523/1991 allowing the claim of the respondents, who happened to be occupying the post of Traffic Inspector. As it appears, the 3 posts of Station Master, Yard Master and Traffic Inspector were in the same grade, and a combined seniority list was maintained in respect of those posts, the Railway Administration, however, decided to restruc-ture the cadre some time in July, 1983, and in the restructured cadre, while Station Master and Yard Master became one cadre, the Traffic Inspector became a different cadre. Be it be stated that on the very same date, when the posts of Station Master and Yard Master were bifurcated, the scale of pay was upgraded, while the post of Traffic Inspector continued in the lower grade. When the inter-se-seniority of these employees were determined on the basis of the date of entry into the higher grade, the respondents approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances, and held that there was no rhyme and reason to down grade and seniority of those, who were in the Traffic In-spectors, merely by upgrading the post of Station Master and Yard Master, and therefore, directed that a fresh seniority list be drawn up of persons belonging to all these 3 categories of posts.
2. Mr. Goswami appearing for the Railway Administration contended that soon after the cadre was restructed, and bifurcation was made, option had been sought for from the employees as to whether they would like to continue in the cadre of Traffic Inspector or would like to come over to the Station Master and Yard Master, and since only those employees, who exercised their option to continue as Traffic Inspector were given the same, they cannot be permitted to make a grievance at this belated stage. Such a stand does not appear to have been taken before the Tribunal and Trib-unal has not focused its attention and answered on this question. It is true that Mr. Goswami relied upon a letter dated 7.2.1984 purported to be in reply of letter of Administration dated 16.10.1983, but even that purported letter dated 16.10.1983 is also not on record. Apart from the fact that the stand in ques-tion had not been taken before the Tribunal, it is also not possible for us to come to a conclusion on the basis of the letter, that,in fact,an option had been called for, and the employees gave their option to continue in the cadre of Traffic Inspector. In the aforesaid premises, we see no legal infirmity with the impugned order of the Tribunal requiring our interfer-ence under Article 136 of the Constitution.
3. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
1. Union of India is in appeal against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 523/1991 allowing the claim of the respondents, who happened to be occupying the post of Traffic Inspector. As it appears, the 3 posts of Station Master, Yard Master and Traffic Inspector were in the same grade, and a combined seniority list was maintained in respect of those posts, the Railway Administration, however, decided to restruc-ture the cadre some time in July, 1983, and in the restructured cadre, while Station Master and Yard Master became one cadre, the Traffic Inspector became a different cadre. Be it be stated that on the very same date, when the posts of Station Master and Yard Master were bifurcated, the scale of pay was upgraded, while the post of Traffic Inspector continued in the lower grade. When the inter-se-seniority of these employees were determined on the basis of the date of entry into the higher grade, the respondents approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances, and held that there was no rhyme and reason to down grade and seniority of those, who were in the Traffic In-spectors, merely by upgrading the post of Station Master and Yard Master, and therefore, directed that a fresh seniority list be drawn up of persons belonging to all these 3 categories of posts.
2. Mr. Goswami appearing for the Railway Administration contended that soon after the cadre was restructed, and bifurcation was made, option had been sought for from the employees as to whether they would like to continue in the cadre of Traffic Inspector or would like to come over to the Station Master and Yard Master, and since only those employees, who exercised their option to continue as Traffic Inspector were given the same, they cannot be permitted to make a grievance at this belated stage. Such a stand does not appear to have been taken before the Tribunal and Trib-unal has not focused its attention and answered on this question. It is true that Mr. Goswami relied upon a letter dated 7.2.1984 purported to be in reply of letter of Administration dated 16.10.1983, but even that purported letter dated 16.10.1983 is also not on record. Apart from the fact that the stand in ques-tion had not been taken before the Tribunal, it is also not possible for us to come to a conclusion on the basis of the letter, that,in fact,an option had been called for, and the employees gave their option to continue in the cadre of Traffic Inspector. In the aforesaid premises, we see no legal infirmity with the impugned order of the Tribunal requiring our interfer-ence under Article 136 of the Constitution.
3. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
