Mohammed Shameem A. and Chacko George v Union of India and others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 5TH MAGHA, 1939** **OP (CAT).No. 17 of 2018** **M.A.NO.180/00007/2018 IN O.A.NO. 180/01060/2017 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM** **--------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/MISC.RESPONDENTS IN MA :** - **1 MOHAMMED SHAMEEM.A,** - **AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. ALIYAR E.K, SENIOR DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER AD-HOC** - **SOUTH RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14** - **PERMANENT ADDRESS: "JAMEELAS", RA 103, PALLATH ROAD, THAMMANAM, KOCHI 32.** - **2 CHACKO GEORGE,** - **AGE 56 YEARS, S/O. K.A.GEORGE,** - **DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER/CONSTRUCTION/MANGALORE , SOUTH RAILWAY, PERMANENT ADDRESS:FLAT NO.7-C, HOLIDAY GRANDEUR, CHEMMATH ROAD,** - **GANDHI NAGAR, KALOOR P.O, KOCHI 17.** **BY ADV.SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/MISC.RESPONDENTS IN MA :** **1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,** - **MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS(RAILWAY BOARD),** - **RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110 001.** **2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE PARK TOWN P.O,** - **CHENNAI 600 003.** **3. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER(CONSTRUCTION), SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ERNAKULAM JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM 682 016.** **4. SRI. R.K.KUSHWAHA,** - **S/O. SRI. RAJ KISHORE KUSHWAHA,** - **ASSISTANT SIGNAL AND TELECOM ENGINEER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, DANAPUR, RESIDING AT NO. 899/D, OFFICERS REST HOUSE,** - **NEAR DRM OFFICE, KHAGAUL DISTRICT PATNA 801 105.** **..2/-** **..2..** **OP (CAT).No. 17 of 2018** **5. S. JAGADISH,** - **S/O. P.SUBRAMANIAN, EXECUTIVE SIGNAL AND TELECOMMUNICATION ENGINEER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CONSTRUCTION, ERNAKULAM 682 016** **R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN, S.C BY ADV. SRI.C.S.DIAS, S.C** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Msd.** **OP (CAT).No. 17 of 2018 (Z)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 08-01-2018 IN M.A NO.180/00007/2018 IN O.A NO. 180/01060/2017 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF M.A NO. 180/00007/2018 IN O.A NO.180/01060/2017 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN O.A.NO. 1060 OF 2018 DATED 15-11-2017 RENDERED BY THE CAT ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF O.A NO. 180/01060/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF IN M.A NO. 180/13/2018 IN O.A NO.180/01060/2017 DATED 08-01-2018 ORDER DATE FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** ## **Msd.** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JJ.** ## **=========================== OP(CAT) No.17 of 2018** **============================ Dated this the 25[th] day of January, 2018** ## **J U D G M E N T** Devan Ramachandran, J The petitioners claim to be promotee Group 'A' Officers of Southern Railway, who are all working in Junior Administrative capacity. They had filed O.A No.1060 of 2017, when orders were issued to revert them and had obtained interim orders from the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT for short), Ernakulam Bench; the effect of which was that their reversion, ordered through the impugned orders, would not stand effectuated. However, when the matter was subsequently heard by the learned Tribunal, it was pleased to modify the earlier order of status quo and to issue an order, dated 08.01.2018, vacating the same and permitting the Authorities to give effect to Annexures-A1 and A2 orders. This order is under challenge at the hands of the petitioners before us. 2 OP(CAT) No.17 of 2018 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. T.C. Govindaswamy, and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. We must, at the out set, make it clear that, we do not propose to say anything on the merits of the contentions of the parties, since we are certainly aware that anything that we say or any observations that we make, will have ramifications on effect on the final disposal of the original application itself. We are only called upon to consider whether the order now impugned before us is valid or otherwise. 4. As we indicated above, the petitioners were sought to be reverted through Annexures-A1 and A2 orders. Through Annexure-A1, the Railway Board had ordered that all promotions given to promotee officers, like the petitioners, after 03.05.2016 should be withdrawn. The petitioners have conceded that all of them were promoted after that date. After doing so through Annexure-A2 order, it was made clear 3 OP(CAT) No.17 of 2018 that the contents of Annexure-A1 will not have effect to the promotions ordered in favour of direct recruitees. The petitioners say that if these two orders are put into operation, their juniors, who are the direct recruitees, will steal a march over them and that they will lose their seniority, settled in their favour, through the seniority list now in force. 5. Even though the contentions of the petitioners were so noticed, the learned Tribunal also saw that the Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, had issued Annexure-A3 order rejecting these contentions of persons situated like the petitioners herein and that this order was confirmed by Annexure-A4 judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, Patna. The learned Tribunal also noticed that Annexure-A4 order of the Patna High Court has been assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court through S.L.P No.22444 of 2017 and that the Hon'ble Court has issued an order dated 15.12.2017, which has been produced on record as Annexure-MA3, wherein the order reads as follows: 4 OP(CAT) No.17 of 2018 “We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the private respondents. We have been informed that certain regular promotions were made prior to 12.07.2016 ie; before the Patna High Court passed an interim order in CWJC No.10669/2016. In our opinion, for the time being the regular promotions made prior to 12.07.2016 should not be affected. On an oral request, the Department of Personnel and Training is impleaded as a party. Cause title be amended accordingly. Issue notice Dasti, in addition. Reply be filed within four weeks by the Railways as well as by the DoPT. List immediately thereafter” 6. Since the learned Tribunal saw that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had made specific directions regarding the promotions and has clarified that only regular promotions made prior to 12.07.2016 would be protected, it was found that the order of status quo granted by the learned Tribunal has lost its relevance. It is this view of the learned Tribunal which is challenged by the petitioners. 5 OP(CAT) No.17 of 2018 7. We have examined the order of the learned Tribunal impugned before us. We notice that the learned Tribunal has considered the factual situation quite in detail and has adverted to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Union of Inida (UOI) and Ors.** v. **N.R.Parmar and Ors [(2012)(13) SCC 340]** , wherein, the Hon'ble Court had held that the selected candidates, whose results were declared much later, cannot be blamed for the administrative delay in completing the course of selection and that they will be entitled to be assigned seniority, with reference to the particular recruitment for which the requisitions of vacancies were made. It was on the basis of these directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the DoP&T had issued an O.M, dated 04.03.2014, wherein, the manner of determination of inter-se of seniority of direct recruitees and promotees were to be made. These directions in the said O.M has been extracted in paragraph 4 of the impugned order. The learned Tribunal found that the present exercise of the Authorities is in 6 OP(CAT) No.17 of 2018 violation of these guidelines and in particular, the directions of the Hon'be Supreme Court in **N.R.Parmar 's** case (supra) and therefore, that the petitioners herein cannot be allowed to avail the benefit of an order of status quo passed by it earlier, especially in view of the latest interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P No.22444/2017, extracted above. 8. We find from a reading of the order that, it has been issued for valid reasons and the mentation that went through the mind of the Tribunal, in making the impugned order, is explicit from it itself because, obviously, on account of the pursuant interim order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The earlier order of the status quo passed by the learned Tribunal would lose legs to stand on and would certainly lose relevance because, these issues are now pending before the Hon'ble Court and only the orders issued by it could have any relevance to the petitioners or similarly placed persons. 7 OP(CAT) No.17 of 2018 9. We are aware that, Sri. TC. Goivindaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has a specific contention that various other Administrative Tribunals in India have issued orders of status quo and such other, but we are firmly of the view that, going by the interim order now granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition, it would not be justifiable for us to take a different view, notwithstanding the fact that, other Tribunals may have issued orders in favour of the petitioners. 10. We thus find favour with the order of the CAT Ernakulam Bench, in M.A No.7/2018 in O.A No.1060/2017 dated 08.01.2018 and we confirm the same. 11. Needless to say, if the petitioners have a grievance that the direct recruitees are allegedly stealing a march over them, it would certainly be available to them to approach the learned Tribunal, with a request to have the original application itself heard at the earliest and we are sure that the learned Tribunal will consider their request in terms of 8 OP(CAT) No.17 of 2018 law. 12. We make it clear that we have not considered any of the contentions of either parties on its merits and we leave it to the Tribunal to consider the same without being in any manner influenced by what is stated herein. The original petitions is disposed of. Sd/- **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** Sd/- **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** SB/27/01/2018