Dismissed

Ashwani Kumar Bali S/O Shri Sudarshan v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC7 Nov 2024CW/2823/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging absorption on technical posts against filled options for Goods Guard. Bench held employees have no vested right to specific posts; Railway's decision based on administrative needs is not arbitrary.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions filed for quashing of Tribunal order are dismissed.

What the court decided

Ashwani Kumar Bali S/O Shri Sudarshan Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:45990-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2335/2022

¶4

Puran Prakash Bairwa S/o Shri Babu Lal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Kuti, Syalawas, Ward No. 9, Bandikui District, Dausa, Presently Working As Technician-I, Grade Pay 2800/- Group-C, Loco Shed, N.w.r. Phulera

¶5

Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Sunder Singh, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Railway Quarter No. 404, A, B Railway A.en. Colony, Phulera District, Jaipur Presently Working As Technician-I, Grade Pay 2800/- Group-C, Loco Shed, N.w.r. Phulera

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union Of India, Through General Manager North Western Railway, Jawahar Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur 302017.

¶9

Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway, Power House Road, Jaipur (Raj.) 302006.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2823/2022

¶13

Ashwani Kumar Bali S/o Shri Sudarshan, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Naina Bag, House No. 40, Bali Bhawan, Ajmer Presently Working As Technician- I, Grade Pay 2800/-, Group C At Lock Trouble Shooting Loco Lobby, N.w.r. Jaipur

¶14

Suresh Chandra Jangid S/o Shri Baluram Jangid, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Village Sitarampura, Post Gadota, Via Bagru, Jaipur Presently Working As Technician- I, Grade Pay 2800/-, Group C At Lock Shed, N.w.r. Phulera

¶15

----Petitioners

¶16

Versus

¶17

Union Of India, Through General Manager North Western Railway, Jawahar Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur - 302017.

¶18

Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway, Power House Road, Jaipur (Raj.) . 302006.

¶19

----Respondents

¶20

(2 of 5)

¶21

[2024:RJ-JP:45990-DB]

¶22

[CW-2335/2022]

¶23

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankit Rathore
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Divyesh Maheshwari with Mr. Yuvraj Mittal
		Mr. Parag Rastogi

¶24

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

¶25

Order reserved on : 04/11/2024

¶26

Order pronounced on : 07/11/2024

¶27

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:

¶28

These two petitions are being decided by this common order as the facts and issues involved are similar. For convenience, the facts are being taken from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2335/2022.

¶29

This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 06.08.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal'). 3. The dispute is that the petitioners had opted for absorption to the post of Goods Guard but were absorbed against the post of Technical-I, having the similar pay-scale.

¶30

The brief facts are that the petitioners were working in Diesel Shed at Phulera. On closure of the Diesel Shed, the employees were declared surplus and process of absorption was initiated. The petitioners were asked to fill three options but the petitioners applied for absorption only against the vacancies of Goods Guard. The Original Application filed before the Tribunal raising grievance that appointment on the post of Technical-I in violation of Master Circular No.22 (Annexure-A/18) was dismissed.

¶31

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that as per clause 8 of the Circular, surplus employees

¶32

[2024:RJ-JP:45990-DB]

¶33

[CW-2335/2022]

¶34

(3 of 5)

¶35

have priority over the casual labour and direct recruitment for filling the vacancies. The argument is that the petitioners had only applied for absorption as Goods Guard, the absorption on the technical post was against the option filled.

¶36

As per contra the options for absorption were invited on 21.07.2020 and it was clarified therein that filling of the options does not entail the respondents for absorption on those very posts. The employees to be absorbed who had not filled all three options were granted another opportunity vide communication dated 13.08.2020 to fill remaining options, the petitioners failed to do the needful. It is further argued that no surplus employee was appointed on the post of Goods Guard and the appointments were made as per administrative exigencies.

¶37

Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to quote Clause-8 of the Master Circular:-

¶38

"III. Utilisation/Redeployment of Surplus

¶39

Staff:

¶40

8. When doing the advance planning for identifying the surplus posts referred to in para 2 above, appropriate scheme for providing training, wherever found necessary, in alternative jobs for staff rendered surplus should also be planned and developed. Utilisation and re-deployment of surplus staff should be given the highest priority and their absorption will have precedence over all other modes of recruitment including screening of casual labour and direct recruitment for filling up the vacancies so that the surplus staff can be first

¶41

(4 of 5)

¶42

[2024:RJ-JP:45990-DB]

¶43

[CW-2335/2022]

¶44

utilised at suitable locations including places where additional posts are created for

¶45

operation/maintenance of additional/new assets."

¶46

The undisputed facts are that the petitioners were declared surplus and have been absorbed by the Railway on the post having pay scale equivalent to Goods Guard. The petitioners inspite of opportunities having been granted, had not filled three options but opted to be absorbed as Goods Guard.

¶47

The reliance placed upon Clause-8 of Master Circular does not enhance the case of the petitioners. As per Clause-8, surplus staff gets precedence over other modes of recruitment but nowhere provides that surplus employees shall have a right for absorption on a particular post.

¶48

The options were called vide communication dated 21.07.2020 and the language was unambiguous that it was not necessary that surplus employees shall be absorbed as per the options filled.

¶49

The Tribunal rightly held that the employee cannot be forced to give three options but at the same time, the respondents cannot be forced that the employee be absorbed for a particular post.

¶50

The petitioners have no vested right to be absorbed on a particular post. The action of the respondents of not appointing the petitioners on the post of Goods Guard is not arbitrary, considering that none of the surplus employees were appointed on the post of Goods Guard.

¶51

[2024:RJ-JP:45990-DB]

¶52

[CW-2335/2022]

¶53

(5 of 5)

¶54

This Court in normal course shall not interfere in the administrative decisions taken by the respondents with regard to absorption of the surplus employees for a particular post.

¶55

No case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petitions are dismissed.

¶56

All pending application(s) stand disposed of.

¶57

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶58

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶59

Simple Kumawat/191-192S

¶60

Whether Reportable: Yes

Ashwani Kumar Bali S/O Shri Sudarshan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Ashwani Kumar Bali S/O Shri Sudarshan v. Union of India

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

Smt Shimla Devi Vs I G Stamps Division and Anr.

Smt. Mamta Singh W/O Shri Sunil Sinha Vs State of Rajasthan

Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax Vs M/S Bhansali Cables and Conductors Pvt. Ltd.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Vs M/S Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs Renu Poddar

Puran Prakash Bairwa S/O Shri Babu Lal Vs Union of India