Union of India & Ors. Vs. C. Jayaprakasan
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 10982 of 1996
Petitioner: Union of India & Ors.
Respondent: C. Jayaprakasan
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 10982 of 1996
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 26, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Constitution
Articles 226, 14 – Seniority – R1 senior to R2 in cadre of Char-geman-B – In grade of Chargeman-A, R2 promoted earlier and again promoted to grade of Boiler Supervisor on 1.1.84 – R1 still in grade of Chargeman-A – No rule to determine seniority on the basis of entire continuous service – All posts promotional. Held that Tribunal was not justified in quash-ing seniority list, showing R2 as senior to R1. Decision of Tribunal set aside. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The Union of India is in appeal against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (for short “the Tribunal”). Respondent no. 1 as well as respondent nos. 2 to 6 were inducted into the Railway Administration and, in course of time, got their promotion to different grades. Be it stated that while respondent no. 1 was appointed initially on 26.4.1975, respondent no. 2 and others were appointed on 11.2.1976 and later. The next promotional post was Chargeman-B. Respondent no. 1 was promoted to the said post on 5.5.1977 whereas respondent no.2 was promoted on 11.2.1978. Obviously in the grade of Chargeman-B respondent no. 1 was senior to respondent no. 2. But, while question for promotion to the post of Chargeman-A came respondent no. 2 was promoted in March, 1980 and respondent no. 1 though initially promoted in 1980 temporarily but was promoted on continuous basis on 27th December, 1983. The next promotional post was the post of Boiler Supervisor. The seniority list of the Boiler Supervisor having been drawn up and respondent no. 2 having been shown therein indicating that he had been promoted w.e.f. 1.1.1984 and respondent no. 1 not having been shown therein, he approached the Tribunal. Be it stated that on the earlier occasion respondent no. 1 had also approached the Tribunal but the Tribunal disposed of the matter by directing the appropriate authorities to consid-er his representation and the representation having been reject-ed, he filed the present application before the Tribunal. On the date when respondent no. 1 approached the Tribunal he was still continuing as a Boiler Chargeman-A and had not come to the grade of Boiler Supervisor whereas respondent no. 2 had already been promoted to Boiler Supervisor on 1.1.1984. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment having quashed the seniority list of the Boiler Supervisor as well as the order rejecting the representation of the respondent no. 1, the Union has come up in appeal.
2. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the Railway Administration/Union of India contends that it is no doubt true that respondent no. 1 was senior to respondent no. 2 in the cadre of Chargeman-B but so far as the post of Chargeman-A as well as the Boiler Supervisor is concerned, respondent no. 2 having been promoted earlier than respondent no. 1, at any rate, respondent no. 2 having been promoted to the post of Boiler Supervisor on 1.1.1984, while respondent no. 1 was still continu-ing as Chargeman-A even on the date of the application filed before the Tribunal, there was no justification for the Tribunal, to set aside the seniority list of Boiler Supervisors. It is nobody’s case that the seniority in the cadre of Boiler Supervisors is to be deter-mined on the basis of the entire continuous length of service under the Railway Administration. It is also undisputed that the post of Chargeman-B is a promotional post under the Railway Admin-istration and the Chargeman-A is still further from Chargeman-B, and the post of Boiler Supervisor is a promotional post to Char-geman-A. In that view of the matter until and unless it is estab-lished that the respondent no.1 was either promoted to Chargeman-A earlier than the respondent no. 2 or that respondent no. 2 was erroneously promoted to the post of Chargeman-A, the question of respondent no. 1 gaining seniority over respondent no. 2 does not arise. In the absence of any specific rule holding that the continuous length of service would be the basis for seniority in a particular grade, entry into the grade is the normal rule for promotion. Applying that rule, respondent no. 2 having come to the grade of Chargeman-A on 20th March, 1980 and respondent no. 1 having come to that grade only on 27.12.1983, the said respondent no. 1 cannot be held to be senior to respondent no. 2. Similarly respondent no. 2 having come to the cadre of Boiler Supervisor on 1.1.1984 and the respondent no. 1 having reached that grade only during the pendency of the matter before the Tribunal, he also cannot claim seniority in the cadre of Boiler Supervisor over respondent no. 2. In this view of the matter the Tribunal was wholly unjustified in setting aside the gradation list of Boilers Supervisors which had been prepared by the Railway Administra-tion and which was the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal. In our considered opinion the Tribunal committed error in interfering with the determination of seniority made by the Administration in the cadre of Boiler Supervisors. We therefore set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and allow this appeal.
1. The Union of India is in appeal against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (for short “the Tribunal”). Respondent no. 1 as well as respondent nos. 2 to 6 were inducted into the Railway Administration and, in course of time, got their promotion to different grades. Be it stated that while respondent no. 1 was appointed initially on 26.4.1975, respondent no. 2 and others were appointed on 11.2.1976 and later. The next promotional post was Chargeman-B. Respondent no. 1 was promoted to the said post on 5.5.1977 whereas respondent no.2 was promoted on 11.2.1978. Obviously in the grade of Chargeman-B respondent no. 1 was senior to respondent no. 2. But, while question for promotion to the post of Chargeman-A came respondent no. 2 was promoted in March, 1980 and respondent no. 1 though initially promoted in 1980 temporarily but was promoted on continuous basis on 27th December, 1983. The next promotional post was the post of Boiler Supervisor. The seniority list of the Boiler Supervisor having been drawn up and respondent no. 2 having been shown therein indicating that he had been promoted w.e.f. 1.1.1984 and respondent no. 1 not having been shown therein, he approached the Tribunal. Be it stated that on the earlier occasion respondent no. 1 had also approached the Tribunal but the Tribunal disposed of the matter by directing the appropriate authorities to consid-er his representation and the representation having been reject-ed, he filed the present application before the Tribunal. On the date when respondent no. 1 approached the Tribunal he was still continuing as a Boiler Chargeman-A and had not come to the grade of Boiler Supervisor whereas respondent no. 2 had already been promoted to Boiler Supervisor on 1.1.1984. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment having quashed the seniority list of the Boiler Supervisor as well as the order rejecting the representation of the respondent no. 1, the Union has come up in appeal.
2. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the Railway Administration/Union of India contends that it is no doubt true that respondent no. 1 was senior to respondent no. 2 in the cadre of Chargeman-B but so far as the post of Chargeman-A as well as the Boiler Supervisor is concerned, respondent no. 2 having been promoted earlier than respondent no. 1, at any rate, respondent no. 2 having been promoted to the post of Boiler Supervisor on 1.1.1984, while respondent no. 1 was still continu-ing as Chargeman-A even on the date of the application filed before the Tribunal, there was no justification for the Tribunal, to set aside the seniority list of Boiler Supervisors. It is nobody’s case that the seniority in the cadre of Boiler Supervisors is to be deter-mined on the basis of the entire continuous length of service under the Railway Administration. It is also undisputed that the post of Chargeman-B is a promotional post under the Railway Admin-istration and the Chargeman-A is still further from Chargeman-B, and the post of Boiler Supervisor is a promotional post to Char-geman-A. In that view of the matter until and unless it is estab-lished that the respondent no.1 was either promoted to Chargeman-A earlier than the respondent no. 2 or that respondent no. 2 was erroneously promoted to the post of Chargeman-A, the question of respondent no. 1 gaining seniority over respondent no. 2 does not arise. In the absence of any specific rule holding that the continuous length of service would be the basis for seniority in a particular grade, entry into the grade is the normal rule for promotion. Applying that rule, respondent no. 2 having come to the grade of Chargeman-A on 20th March, 1980 and respondent no. 1 having come to that grade only on 27.12.1983, the said respondent no. 1 cannot be held to be senior to respondent no. 2. Similarly respondent no. 2 having come to the cadre of Boiler Supervisor on 1.1.1984 and the respondent no. 1 having reached that grade only during the pendency of the matter before the Tribunal, he also cannot claim seniority in the cadre of Boiler Supervisor over respondent no. 2. In this view of the matter the Tribunal was wholly unjustified in setting aside the gradation list of Boilers Supervisors which had been prepared by the Railway Administra-tion and which was the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal. In our considered opinion the Tribunal committed error in interfering with the determination of seniority made by the Administration in the cadre of Boiler Supervisors. We therefore set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and allow this appeal.
