PETITIONER:
V.K. DUBEY & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/04/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
ORDER
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal, by special leave, arises from the order dated 16.12.1996 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench in O.A. No.1024/95.
The appellants were initially drafted on the diesel side of the locomotive operations. Subsequently, on introduction of electrical engines they were given training and were absorbed on the electrical locomotive side, The question of inter se seniority of employees already working on the electrical locomotive side and those shifted from the diesel locomotive side to the electrical locomotive side had arisen. The Tribunal has held that since they were deployed to the electrical side for the first time, their seniority was required to be adjudged from the date of their deployment in the electrical locomotive operations and the previous service cannot be counted for the purpose of determination of inter se seniority. This controversy was considered by this court in Rama Kant Chaturvedi V. Divisional Supdt. Northern Railway [1980 supp. SCC 621] where in this court had held as under:
"The Diesel Unit of the Railway was
constituted for the first time
apart from the steam Unit already
existing. The two units were
treated as separate and distinct
having different avenues of
promotion. As considerable time
might elapse before Diesel Cleaners
could be promoted as shunters and
Drivers" Assistant in the diesel
unit it was decided to draft
Firemen on the steam side,
possessing the minimum educational
qualification of matriculation, to
the diesel side as Drivers"
Assistants after giving them the
requisite training. That was done.
All the initial appointments were
on officiating basis. As result of
the appointments, some Firemen
Grade "B" and Firemen Grade "A" but
who happened to possess the minimum
education qualification which many
of the Firemen Grades "A" and "B"
did not possess, were drawn into
the diesel unit earlier than some
of the Firemen Grades "A" and "B"
who came in later as a result of
the relaxation of the rule
prescribing minimum educational
qualification. The Railway
Administration issued instruction
that the Juniormost Firemen Grade
‘C’ officiating as Diesel Driver
Assistant should be reverted in
order to accommodate the senior
staff. Pursuant to these
instructions the appellants, all of
whom were drawn from the category
of Firemen Grade "C" and who had
been appointed as officiating
Drivers" Assistants, were reverted
to the steam side as Firemen Grade
"C " and who has been appointed as
officiating Drivers" Assistants,
were reverted to the steam side as
Firemen Grades "A" and "B" who were
appointed as Drivers" Assistants on
the diesel side long after the
appointment of the appellants as
Drivers" Assistants on the
diesel side. Questions for
determination were whether the
earlier appointees could claim
seniority over the later appointees
and whether the Railway
Administration was justified in
reverting the appellants to the
old unit. Allowing the appeals the
supreme court
Held:
Those who were drafted into the
diesel unit earlier would not lose
the benefit of their continuous
service on the diesel unit merely
because the appointments were on an
officiating basis and because
others who were senior to them on
the steam side came in or chose to
come in at a later stage. If
seniors on the steam side did not
come in earlier it was because they
were barred from coming in by the
requirement of a minimum
educational qualification. The
subsequent relaxation of the rule
cannot enable them to take a " frog
leap" over the heads of those who
had come into the diesel side is of
no relevance in determining
seniority on the diesel side when
they are appointed on the diesel
side on different days."
The ratio therein was followed by another Bench of this court in South Eastern Railway through Chief personnel Officer & ors. V. Ramanarain Singh & Ors. etc. (C.A. No.2530/81 and batch), dated July 29,1988.
Shri Vijay Bahuguna, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that since they had been working on the diesel side for along number of years, merely because they were sent to training for three months to be absorbed in the electrical locomotive operations, their entire previous length of service cannot be wiped out causing detriment to their length of service and promotional avenues on account of the change in the policy. Therefore, the view taken by this court requires reconsideration. We find no force in the contention. it is seen that the diesel engine drivers and the staff working with them operates in one sector, namely, diesel locomotive sector, while electrical engine drivers and the staff operating on the electrical engines operate on a different sector. Consequent upon the gradual displacement of diesel engines, instead of retrenching them service they were sought to be absorbed by giving necessary training in the trains operating on electrical energy. As a consequence, they were shifted to a new cadre. Under these circumstances, they cannot have a lien on the posts on electrical side nor they be entitled to seniority over the staff regularly working in the electrical locomotives detriment. Under those circumstances, this court has held that they cannot have a seniority over them. However, the Tribunal in the impugned order has well protected the rights which they had already accrued as under:
"We have been informed by the
departmental representative that on
such a re-determination of the
seniority a large number of
convertees who have already
advances several steps in the
electrical side would face
reversion resulting in not only
hardship to such individual but
also functional problem in running
the Locomotives. We, therefore,
provide that on such re-
determination of seniority, the
persons who have already been
promoted to higher grades in
Electrical side, shall not be
reverted but their subsequent
advancement to still higher grades
shall be dependent on such re-
determined seniority. However, no
further promotions shall be made by
the respondents, in the electrical
side in contravention of the
aforesaid principle of seniority."
In view of the above direction, the accrued rights are protected and being enjoyed by the appellants. The Tribunal’s order, therefore, directed to safeguard the rights already had by the appellants However, future promotions depends upon the inter se seniority that may be determined by the authorities as directed by the Tribunal. Thus we find no flaw in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.