Allowed

Ram Chandra -Iii and 10 Ors. v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2018WRIA/43274/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Court quashed the Tribunal's finding that the Assistant Loco Pilot is the lowest post for Drivers, remanding the matter for reconsideration in light of unconsidered Railway Establishment Manual provisions regarding promotion channels.

What did the court decide?

The wriet petition is allowed; the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 21.03.2013 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

Ram Chandra -Iii and 10 Ors. Vs Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 39

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43274 of 2013

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Chandra -Iii And 10 Ors. Respondent :- Union Of India & 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- B.Ram,Anand Srivastava,Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- Govind Saran,S.C.,Tarun Varma

¶5

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri B. Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners, who are 11 in numbers and Shri Sanjay Tiwari and Shri Navneet Chandra Tripathi for the Raiways.

¶7

The petitioners in the writ petition are seeking quashing of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 21.03.2013, whereby the Tribunal has held that the lowest post in the category of Drivers is that of Assistant Loco Pilot.

¶8

The Railway Administration brought forth a scheme for giving employment to suitable wards of employees, whose application for retirement under the scheme is accepted, subject to the candidate fulfilling the eligibility conditions. Paragraph (vi) of the Scheme, copy of which has been filed as Annexure- 2 to the writ petition, provides that the wards will be considered for appointment only in the lowest recruitment grade of the respective category from which the employee seeks retirement, depending upon his/her eligibility and suitability, but not in any other category. This scheme related only to Drivers and Gangman and is dated 02.01.2004.

¶9

There is no dispute between the parties that the petitioners are Drivers and their wards can claim appointment only in the linear channel of Drivers.

¶10

¶11

The Tribunal in its judgement impugned herein has held that the post of Assistant Loco Pilot in the category of Drivers to be the lowest post which means that the wards of the petitioners can be appointed only on that post. However Para 11 of the order of the Tribunal is being reproduced herein below:-

¶12

“11. It is clear from the 2 sets of RRs provided that the posts of 1^st Fireman claimed by the applicants and the Electric Assistant/Assistant Loco Pilot both have a pay scale Rs. 950-1500. Both are basically to be filled up through promotion, the 1^st Fireman from Fireman II and Assistant Loco Pilot from Fireman 1^st as also 2^nd Fireman and Artisan under certain provisos. Both have a window for direct recruitment in case adequate number of eligible people are not available in the feeder cadre. But the difference is that while 1^st Fireman is eligible for lateral induction as Assistant Loco Pilot subject to having the requisite qualification the vice versa is not possible.”

¶13

We find that the Tribunal has also held that the posts of Fireman and Electric Assistant/Assistant Loco Pilot are in the pay scale of 950-1500 and the channel is 1^st Fireman from Fireman II and Assistant Loco Pilot from 1^st Firemen as also 2^nd Fireman and Artisan under certain provisos. The Tribunal has also held that 1^st Fireman is eligible for lateral induction as Assistant Loco Pilot. While recording these findings, the Tribunal has referred to some RRs but which are these RRs, what is the date of these RRs, nothing has been mentioned.

¶14

Before us in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent- Railways, it is stated that the post of 1^st Fireman has been deleted from the channel of promotion and a reference has been made to Para 136 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. It is also stated that the existing entry Diesel Assistant is amended and Para 137 has been added mentioning Diesel Assistant/Electric Assistant. With regard to the Para 137 relating to category of Diesel Assistant/Electric Assistant in the Pay Scale of

¶15

¶16

3050-4590, it is also mentioned that 50 percent from amongst the volunteering from Diesel/Electric Loco Fitters of Diesel/Electric Loco Sheds would be eligible for promotion.

¶17

The respondents in their rejoinder affidavit have filed Annexure RA- 1, which is a copy of the relevant extract of Para 129 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Chapter (III) referring to Transportation (Power) Department which shows the channel of promotion to the post of Driver Grade 'C' as under:-

¶18

*Engine Cleaners

¶19

(Rs. 70-85) (Direct) Trainee Firemen
(With Matriculation or
equivalent qualification)
Second Firemen Gr. 'C'
(Rs. 80-95)
First Firemen Gr. 'B'
(Rs. 100-130)
25% 75%
Shunter Gr. 'B' First Firemen Gr. 'A'
(Rs. 130-158) (Rs. 125-155)
Shunters Gr. 'A'
(Rs. 130-200)

¶20

Driver Gr. 'C' (Rs. 150-240)

¶21

If we accept that the post of 1^st Fireman has been abolished as stated by the Railways, nothing has been indicated as to what happened to the post of Engine Cleaner, 2^nd Fireman and Shunter Gr. 'B'.

¶22

The Tribunal in Para 11 of its order also mentions 'Assistant

¶23

¶24

Loco Pilot' from 1^st Fireman as also 2^nd Fireman and Artisan under certain provisos', which shows that the post of Artisan may be the lowest post and Assistant Loco Pilot may not be the lowest post.

¶25

The Tribunal has also not referred to the Railway Board's order dated 03.08.2001 by which the post of 1^st Fireman has been deleted. The Tribunal has also not referred to Paras 136 and 137 in its order nor has it referred to Para 129 of the channel of promotion as mentioned in the Chapter (III) Transportation (Power) Department. May be these provisions were not placed before the Tribunal by the Railway Administration.

¶26

We, therefore, set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 21.03.2013 and remit the matter to the Tribunal to re-consider the matter afresh in the light of the observations made above taking into consideration the circulars/administrative orders of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual as also the documents filed by the respondent- Railways with their supplementary counter affidavit dated 25.04.2018.

¶27

The writ petition stands allowed .

¶28

Order Date :- 6.9.2018 A. V. Singh

Ram Chandra -Iii and 10 Ors. v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Chandra -Iii and 10 Ors. v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kumar Tewari Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Virendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ganesh Prasad Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr. Ramanuj Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Prakash Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mahendra Nath Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others