Allowed

The Union Of India and Ors. v. Vinod Kumar

Patna HC4 Apr 2014CWJC/9121/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by the Union of India seeking to quash an order of Patna Bench CAT which fixed the lien of an employee in Danapur Division under East Central Railway. The Court dismissed the writ application, holding that the employee was transferred to Danapur Division itself, not just the Construction Organization, and ordered the Railways to fix the lien with effect from the date of the 2

What did the court decide?

The writ application is dismissed with a direction to the petitioners to fix the lien of the respondent in Danapur Division under East Central Railway with effect from 30.07.2002, along with all conse

The Union Of India and Ors. Vs Vinod Kumar — Property and Title | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

Patna High Court CWJC No.9121 of 2013 (6) dt. 04-04-2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶4

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9121 of 2013

¶5

======================================================

¶6

The Union Of India Through The General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata

¶7

The General Manager, E.C. Railway, Hajipur

¶8

The Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Fairle Place, Kolkata

¶9

The Chief Personnel Officer, E.C. Railway, Hajipur

¶10

The Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Malda

¶11

The Chief Administrative Officer [Con.], E.C. Railway, Mahendru

¶12

The Dy. Chief Engineer [Con.] ,1 E.C. Railway, Hajipur Null Null

¶13

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶14

Versus

¶15

Vinod Kumar S/O - Shri Haridwar Prasad J.E. [1] / W /Con. Under Dy. Chief Engineer [Con.] / 1, E.C. Railway, Hajipur

¶16

.... .... Respondent/s

¶17

====================================================== Appearance :

¶18

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. M. P. Dixit, Advocate

¶19

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Choubey, Advocate

¶20

======================================================

¶21

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI AND

¶22

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH CAV ORDER

¶23

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH)

¶24

6 04-04-2014 The Union of India, through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta, and other functionaries of Eastern Central Railway, has filed the present writ application, seeking quashing of the order, dated 06.08.2012, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal), in O. A. No. 643 of 2007, allowing the prayer of the sole respondent herein to fix his lien , in East Central Railway, in the light of the option exercised by the sole respondent pursuant to notice issued, in this regard, by

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.9121 of 2013 (6) dt. 04-04-2014

¶26

¶27

the Railway Board on 09.07.2002. The learned Tribunal further directed the appellants to grant all consequential benefits to the respondent.

¶28

2. The following facts are not in dispute:-

¶29

(i) The sole respondent herein was, initially, employed in Eastern Railway, Malda Division. In May, 1998, he came, on transfer, to Danapur Division, in Construction Department, as a Junior Engineer. In the year 2002, Railway Board opened various Railway Zones including East Central Railway, Hajipur, with effect from 01.10.2002. A letter, dated 09.07.2002, was issued by Railway Board seeking option from serving employees falling within newly constituted East Central Zone for their permanent absorption in , or transfer to, the East Central Railway. The employee also had an option to retain his lien with his parent Zone/Division. The last date for making of the application, indicating therein option for absorption/transfer, was 13.09.2002.

¶30

(ii) The respondent herein submitted his option, on 30.07.2002, through proper channel, which was, on 29.08.2002, duly forwarded by the Deputy Chief Engineer (CON-1, East Central Railway). The name of the respondent herein, in fact, figured at Sl. No. 7 of the letter, dated 29.08.2002 of the Deputy Chief Engineer (CON-1, East

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.9121 of 2013 (6) dt. 04-04-2014

¶32

¶33

Central Railway). Inquisitively, petitioner No. 6 of the writ petition, namely, Chief Administrative Officer (E.C. Railway), Mahendru, vide its letter, dated 05.05.2004, again, asked the respondent herein to submit his option, which he did, and the same was duly forwarded, on 26.05.2004, to the authority concerned. However, no order was communicated to the respondent.

¶34

(iii) In the meantime, Eastern Railway conducted various promotional examinations for Group ‘D’, but the respondent herein was not called, because he was treated to have ceased to have lien in Eastern Railway and his lien was considered to have been maintained at East Central Railway.

¶35

(iv) Finding himself caught in a situation of uncertainty, because his lien was neither authoritatively considered at Eastern Railway nor at East Central Railway, the respondent herein moved the learned Tribunal, vide O. A. No. 643 of 2007, praying therein to determine his lien, in East Central Railway, on the strength of option submitted by him pursuant to the Railway Board’s letter, dated 09.07.2008. The O. A. was allowed by the learned Tribunal by order, dated 06.08.2012, which stands impugned in this writ application by the Union of India.

¶36

3. The main contention of the writ petitioners herein is that the private respondent was staff of Malda Division

¶37

Patna High Court CWJC No.9121 of 2013 (6) dt. 04-04-2014

¶38

¶39

under Eastern Railway and was transferred to Construction Organization to work in the geographical area of Danapur Division under Eastern Railway itself and not to Danapur Division inasmuch as the Construction Organization is administratively separate from Danapur Division and even though the respondent herein had been working in Construction Organization of Eastern Railway within the territorial jurisdiction of Danapur, the lien, at all relevant times, was maintained at Malda. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that Construction Organization does not have organized cadre and no staff has lien in Construction Organization. The respondent refuted the claim of the Railways by pointing that he was transferred to Construction Organization to work in geographical area of Danapur Division in Eastern Railway and not Danapur Division itself.

¶40

4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶41

5. We find that the respondent herein was, initially, employed in Malda Division of Eastern Railway and he was transferred to Construction Organization, which fell within the territorial area of Danapur Division. In the year 2002, some more Zones were created from existing Zones of Indian Railways. Likewise, East Central Zone was created from Eastern Railway Zone, which, now, comprises of various Divisions including Danapur Division. The Railway

¶42

Patna High Court CWJC No.9121 of 2013 (6) dt. 04-04-2014

¶43

¶44

Board, vide its letter, dated 09.07.2002, gave option to its employees if they would like to retain their lien in the original Division/Zone, wherein they were employed, or they would prefer to be an employee of the new Zone carved out of the original Zone. The respondent opted for his lien in Danapur Division newly carved out of the East Central Railway.

¶45

6. It is not in dispute that option of the respondent was duly forwarded by the Eastern Railway pursuant to the option exercised in 2002 itself. It appears that the letter and/or paper, containing the option of the respondent and forwarded by the Deputy Chief Engineer (CON-1, East Central Railway), was not received at the East Central Railway, Hajipur, though respondent’s option was duly forwarded by the Eastern Railway as indicated hereinbefore. The writ petitioners, realizing that the relevant papers had got lost, asked the respondent to submit his option, in the year 2004, which the respondent did and his option was, once again, forwarded to the authorities concerned, on 26.05.2004. All these circumstances refute the claim of the Railways that the sole respondent was transferred to the geographical area of Danapur Division in Construction Organization, which is separate from Danapur Division.

¶46

7. In our considered view, the learned Tribunal

¶47

Patna High Court CWJC No.9121 of 2013 (6) dt. 04-04-2014

¶48

¶49

correctly came to the conclusion that the respondent’s transfer was not merely to geographical location under Danapur Division in Construction Organization, but to Danapur Division itself. This was the reason why Eastern Railways, while conducting various promotional examinations for Group ‘D’, did not call the respondent.

¶50

8. Because of what has been pointed out above, we find no merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed with direction to the petitioners to fix the lien of the respondent, Vinod Kumar, in Danapur Division under East Central Railway, with effect from the date he was entitled as per his first option, dated 30.07.2002, annexed pursuant to the letter, dated 09.07.2002, of the Railway Board calling for the option with all consequential benefits.

¶51

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)

¶52

I agree I. A. Ansari, J.: (I. A. Ansari, J.)

¶53

KHAN/-

The Union Of India and Ors. v. Vinod Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union Of India and Ors. v. Vinod Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar Tiwary and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mithilesh Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Sunaina Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dharmendra Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Binod Kuamr Singh Vs Sri Shrish Chandra Mishra and or

Sita Devi Vs Ram Udgar Mahton@Anil Kumar