Writ petition by Railway authorities against Central Administrative Tribunal order allowing a Mailman to remain in Trichur with divisional seniority intact. Court closed the petition due to subsequent developments making the subject matter no longer desirable for consideration.
The writ petition stands closed; the legal question is left open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2016/2ND JYAISHTA, 1938
WP(C).No. 238 of 2008 (Z)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 183/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 21-03-2007
PETITIONER(S):
BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SR.PANEL
RESPONDENT(S):
P.I.MOIDEEN, S/O E.U. ISMAIL,
AGED 42 YEARS, MAIL MAN, SUB RECORD OFFICE,, TRICHUR, (UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER TO HRO, ERNAKULAM), RESIDING PERMANENTLY AT PANIKKAVEETTIL HOUSE, P.O.VADOOKKARA, KURUKKANCHERY, TRICHUR.
R BY ADV. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ BY ADV. SRI.P.A.KUMARAN BY ADV. SRI.SURAJ.S BY ADV. SMT.VINEETHA B.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 2305-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 238 of 2008 (Z)
APPENDIX
| PETITIONERS' E | XHIBITS | : | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXT. P1 | : TRUE O.A. |
COPY NO. 1 |
OF THE 83/2006 |
ORDER DATED 21.03.2007 IN |
| EXT. P2 | : TRUE RESPO BENCH |
COPY NDENT . |
OF O.A. HEREIN |
NO. 183/2006 FILED BY THE BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM |
| EXT. P3 | : TRUE PETITI |
COPY ONERS |
OF THE IN EXT. |
REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE P2 O.A. |
| EXT. P4 | : TRUE TO EXT |
COPY . P3 |
OF REJO REPLY ST |
INDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ATEMENT. |
| EXT. P5 | : TRUE BY THE |
COPY EPTI |
OF ADDI TIONERS. |
TIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED |
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON &
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Menon, J.
The Central Government and the Railways are the petitioners before this Court. Grievance is against the direction given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, as per Ext. P1 order, whereby the relief sought for in the O.A. has been granted, in so far as the respondent has been permitted to continue in the Sub Record Office (SRO in short), Trichur, after transfer from the SRO, Kunnamkulam, on his request, without any loss in seniority.
W.P.(C) No. 238 of 2008
: 2 :
happened to be transferred to SRO, Kunnakulam in the best interest of the administration and this place also comes within the area and jurisdiction of the Ernakulam division. Subsequently, the respondent sought for transfer back to the SRO, Trichur in the year 2001, which was granted and the issue started pursuant to the said transfer.
W.P.(C) No. 238 of 2008
: 3 :
posts in the SRO, Trichur and by virtue of the bottom seniority, the respondent came to be transferred to Ernakulam, which made him feel aggrieved, who in turn approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.183 of 2006 challenging the transfer and also the competency of the authorities of the SRO, Trichur, to have issued a gradation list; when the gradation list has to be issued only by the Senior Superintendent, Ernakulam division. The petitioners herein took up a contention before the Tribunal that, in the transfer order issued to the respondent in the year 2001, it was specifically shown that the same was under Rule 38 of the P & T Manual, which clearly stipulates that the transfer given on request would entail loss of seniority and that the person would be placed only at the bottom level at the transferred unit at the S.R.O. i.e. Trichur. This being the position, the person who was to vacate the seat at first, pursuant to surplussage because of the abolition of the posts, was the person who was shown at the bottom level and in the said circumstances, there was nothing wrong on the part of the department in transferring the respondent to Ernakulam.
W.P.(C) No. 238 of 2008
: 4 :
could have been made the basis. Accordingly, the O.A. was allowed, granting the relief sought for. This in turn is under challenge before this Court, at the instance of the Government/Department raising many a ground.
standing counsel for the petitioner is with reference to Ground 2, which is extracted below :
“It is humbly submitted that the appointing authority for Group D officials are Head Record Officers/Sub Record Officers. Schedule 1 A of Postal Manual Volume III clearly specified the appointing authorities of Group A, B, C and D posts. The contention that one who has stayed longest in the office has to be considered when transfer is warranted is against the existing norms followed in such cases. Even though the respondent is in the same Divisional Unit, for Mailman the recruitment unit is the Head Record Office/Sub Record Office and hence transfers are sought for reasons other than public interest i.e. for personal reasons, then the seniority within the recruiting unit is affected. Divisional level seniority becomes applicable for promotion to higher grade etc. In the case of surplusage in the unit, recruitment unit seniority
W.P.(C) No. 238 of 2008
: 5 :
becomes applicable. Therefore the Tribunal has erred in holding that showing the name of the applicant as junior most in the unit is illegal.”
The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the idea and understanding of the petitioner is thoroughly wrong and misconceived and that the seniority has to be reckoned only on the 'division basis' and that the Tribunal has rightly interfered with the order passed by the Department to the contrary.
W.P.(C) No. 238 of 2008
: 6 :
appearing for the respondent that the so called abolition of posts, pursuant to the exercise made by the Screening Committee, has been intercepted in other appropriate proceedings and the 'two' posts which were initially abolished, have been brought back. This Court does not require to probe the correctness of the said submission, in so far as the 'two' vacancies were available by virtue of the retirement of the persons at serial Nos. 2 and 3 and the respondent was continuing at Trichur. This being the position, the subject matter involved in the present writ petition does not deserve to be considered any more. The writ petition stands closed, making it clear that the legal question is left open to be considered in the other appropriate proceedings, if at all any necessity arises.
sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
sd/-
kmd
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE /True copy/
P.A. To Judge
Union of India
Superintendent, Railway Mail Service
P.I. Moideen
P.R. Ramachandra Menon
Anil K. Narendran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
