Union of India v. T. Vinu and Suseel Raj

_**OP(CAT)4385/12 & OP(CAT)40/16**_ 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** **OP (CAT).No.4385 OF 2012(Z)** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 807/2011 DATED 27-07-2012 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**UNION OF INDIA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN**| ||**RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O.**| ||**CHENNAI-600 003.**| |**2**|**CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER**| ||**SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN**| ||**P.O. CHENNAI-600 003.**| |**3**|**DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER**| ||**SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM -**| ||**695014**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS**| ||**SRI.K.SHRI HARI RAO, SC, RAILWAYS**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**T.VINU**| |---|---| ||**ASSISTANT STATION MASTER, TRICHUR STATION, SOUTHERN**| ||**RAILWAY, RESIDING AT: THURUTHIYIL HOUSE, KUNNATHURA**| ||**P.O, KOILANDY, KOZHIKODE - 673 327**| |**2**|**SUSEEL RAJ, S/O.A.K.S.NAIR**| ||**ASSISTANT STATION MASTER, KUZHITHURA STATION,**| ||**SOUTHERN RAILWAY, RESIDING AT: POURNAMI,**| ||**KULAKEDIYORKOREM, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-**| ||**695 020.**| ||**R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.MARTIN G.THOTTAN**| _**OP(CAT)4385/12**_ 2 **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.11.2019, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).40/2016(Z), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _**OP(CAT)4385/12 & OP(CAT)40/16**_ 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** **OP (CAT).No.40 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 957/2012 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**||**UNION OF INDIA**| |---|---|---| |||**AGED 30 YEARS**| |||**REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN**| |||**RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O.,**| |||**CHENNAI-600003.**| |**2**||**SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER**| |||**SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD DIVISION, PALAKKAD-**| |||**678009.**| |**3**||**SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER**| |||**SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION,**| |||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.**| |**4**||**CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER**| |||**SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN**| |||**P.O., CHENNAI-600003.**| |||**BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN, SC, RAILWAYS**| |**DENT/S**|**:**|| |||**MARYMOL MANATTU,**| |||**W/O.REJI MATHEW, ASSISTANT STATION MASTER, SOUTHERN**| |||**RAILWAY, KOTTAYAM R.S. AND P.O.,RESIDING AT**| |||**BHAGAVATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANAKKARI P.O., KOTTAYAM**| |||**DISTRICT, PIN-686632.**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY R1 BY ADV. SMT.KALA T.GOPI R1 BY ADV. SMT.T.N.SREEKALA** _**OP(CAT)4385/12**_ 4 **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.11.2019, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).4385/2012(Z), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _**OP(CAT)4385/12 & OP(CAT)40/16**_ 5 ## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN & V.G.ARUN, JJ.** ----------------------------------------------- O.P.(CAT) No.4385 of 2012 & O.P.(CAT) No. 40 of 2016 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of November, 2019 ## **JUDGMENT** ## _**Arun, J.**_ The original petitions, though filed against separate orders raise a common issue, and are therefore being considered together. The Union of India and the Railway Establishment are the petitioners in the original petitions. The petitioners are aggrieved by the declaration in the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that the applicants are entitled to be absorbed as the junior most Station Masters Grade-II (SM-II) in the pay band Rs.9300-34800 plus grade pay of Rs.4,200/-, with effect from the dates on which they were posted in the Trivandrum Division. 2. O.P.(CAT).No.4385 of 2012 is filed against the order in O.A.No.807 of 2011 and O.P(CAT).No.40 of 2016, against the order in O.A.No.957 of 2012. The brief facts, with reference to _**OP(CAT)4385/12 & OP(CAT)40/16**_ 6 the exhibits and the parties as in the original applications, are as follows; The applicants in O.A.No.807 of 2011 were appointed as Assistant Station Masters (ASM) in the scale of pay of Rs.45007000, at the Chennai Division of the Southern Railway on 16.2.1998. They were promoted as Station Masters Grade-III (SM-III) in the pay scale Rs.5000-8000 in May, 2012 and as Station Masters Grade-II (SM-II) in the scale Rs.5500-9000 [revised to Rs.9300-34800 plus Rs.4,200/- (GP)] on 3/4.7.2008. The applicants had applied for Inter Divisional Transfer to the Trivandrum Division during 1998/1999. Their applications were processed in accordance with seniority and transfer order issued in May, 2010. Upon joining at the Trivandrum Division on 24.5.2010, the applicants were reverted as ASM in the Pay Band Rs.5200-20200 + Rs.4,200/- (GP), on bottom seniority, as per Annexure A2 order dated 2.6.2010. 3. The applicant in O.A.No. 957 of 2012 was appointed as ASM at Palakkad Division on 16.2.1998 and was promoted as SMIII on 18.8.2003 and as SM-II on 6.7.2009. The applicant submitted her request for transfer in 1998 and was transfered as _**OP(CAT)4385/12 & OP(CAT)40/16**_ 7 per Annexure A1 order dated 31.1.2012. As in the case of the other applicants, on transfer she was reverted as the junior most ASM in the pay band Rs.5200-20200 +GP Rs.2,800/-. 4. Before the Tribunal, the common contention of the applicants before the Tribunal was that on inter divisional transfer, they should have been absorbed as the junior most SMII in the pay band Rs.9,300-34800 + Rs.4,200/-(GP). In support of the contention, reliance is placed on Paragraphs 226 and 312 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume-1(IREM Vol.1) and the decision of the Madras High Court in W.P.Nos.16172 of 1998 and 27002 of 2007. 5. The respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that the applicants had requested for inter divisional transfer with bottom seniority as ASM in the scale Rs.5500-9000 [corresponding to the pay band Rs.5200-20200 + Rs.2,800/(GP)]. It was contended that though the applicants could have withdrawn the request, they accepted the transfer acceding to the conditions without demur. It was contended that the attempt of the applicants is to steal a march over the persons who had applied for inter divisional transfer as SM-II, without impleading _**OP(CAT)4385/12 & OP(CAT)40/16**_ 8 those persons. Annexures R1 and R2 applications for transfer was produced to show that the applicants had requested for transfer as ASM. The respondents sought dismissal of the original applications on the ground of delay and non-impleadment of affected parties. The principle of estoppel is also pressed into service. 6. The Tribunal followed the judgments of the Madras High Court and held that Paragraph 312 of IREM only stipulates that the transferred employee would be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the relevant grade at the transferred place, which cannot be interpreted to mean that the transferred person should be posted at the bottom of the entry grade of the post. Taking note of the fact that, while awaiting transfer, the applicants had been promoted twice, the Tribunal held that it would be hypertechnical to hold that, on being promoted, the applicants ought to have re-applied for inter divisional transfer in the higher grade and awaited their turn. According to the Tribunal, an administration, sensitive to the needs of its employees, should have updated the applications for inter divisional transfers under intimation to the applicants. Based on the findings, the Tribunal _**OP(CAT)4385/12 & OP(CAT)40/16**_ 9 allowed the original applications. 7. In the original petitions, it is contended that, having accepted the inter divisional transfer with full knowledge that, on transfer, they would be reverted and posted as ASM and their pay refixed accordingly, the applicants are estopped from challenging their reversion and hence, the Tribunal should not have entertained the original applications. The further contention is that the original applications are barred by limitation as they were filed more than one year of the transfer. It was also contended that the relief sought by the applicants being to the detriment of the persons who had already submitted applications for inter divisional transfer as SM-II, the original application was bad for non jointer of necessary parties. 8. Heard Sri.Sreehari Rao and Sri.N.K.Subramanian, the learned Standing Counsel for the Railways and Sri.T.C.Govinda Swamy and Sri.Martin G.Thottan, the learned counsel for the applicants. 9. For resolving the issue raised in these original petitions, we have to look at Paragraphs 226 and 312 of IREM Volume-1, which are extracted hereunder; _**OP(CAT)4385/12**_ 10 _“_ _**226. Transfers.-** Ordinarily, a railway servant shall be employed throughout his service on the railway or railway establishment to which he is posted on first appointment and shall have no claim as of right for transfer to another railway or another establishment. In the exigencies of service, however, it shall be open to the President ot transfer the railway servant to any other department or railway or railway establishment including a project in or out of India. In regard to Group C and Group D railway servants, the power of the President under this rule in respect of transfer, within India, may be exercised by the General Manager or by a lower authority to whom the power may be re-delegated._ _**Railway Ministry's decision.-** Requests from railway servants in Groups C & D for transfer from one railway to another on grounds of special cases of hardships may be considered favourably by the railway administration. Such staff transferred at their request from one railway to another shall be placed below all existing confirmed and officiating staff in the relevant grade in the promotion group in the new establishment, irrespective of date of confirmation or length of officiating service of the transferred employees._ **==> picture [158 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** _**312. TRANSFER ON REQUEST** .- The seniority of railway servants transferred at their own request from one railway to another should be allotted below that of the existing confirmed, temporary and officiating railway servants in the relevant grade in the promotion group in_ _**OP(CAT)4385/12 & OP(CAT)40/16**_ 11 _the new establishment irrespective of the date of confirmation or length of officiating or temporary service of the transferred railway servants._ _**NOTE** :- (i) This applies also to cases of transfer on request from one cadre/division to another cadre/division on the same railway._ _(Rly.Bd.No.E(NG) I-85 SR 6/14 of 21.1.1986)._ _(ii) The expression “relevant grade” applies to grade where there is an element of direct recruitment. Transfers on request from Railway employees working in such grades may be accepted in such grades. No such transfers should be allowed in the intermediate grades in which all the posts are filled entirely by promotion of staff from the lower grade(s) and there is no element of direct recruitment._ _(No.E(NG) I-69 SR 6/15, dated 24.6.1969) ACS-14).”_ 10. Paragraph 226 of IREM provides for transfer on request from one railway to another subject to the condition that the transferred staff shall be placed below the existing, confirmed and officiating staff in the relevant grade in the promotion group in the new establishment, irrespective of the date of confirmation or length of officiating service of the transferred employee. Paragraph 312 is in _pari materia_ with paragraph 226. By the Note to Paragraph 312, the stipulation In Paragraph 312 is made applicable to transfers on request from one cadre/division to _**OP(CAT)4385/12 & OP(CAT)40/16**_ 12 another cadre/division of the same Railway. The expression 'relevant grade', in Paragraph 312 has been explained to be a grade to which there is an element of direct recruitment. Transfers on request from employees working in a grade with an element of direct recruitment alone can be accepted and no transfer should be allowed in the intermediate grade, of which all the posts are filled entirely by promotion of staff from the lower grades and there is no element of direct recruitment. 11. The applicants have a contention that SM-II is a grade with an element of direct recruitment since, as per Note 3 to Paragraph 122 of IREM Volume-1, in the channel of promotion/higher grade of Station Masters, 25% of the vacancies in the categories of SM-II in the scale Rs.1600-2660 (Rs.55009000/PB Rs.9200-34800 + GP Rs.4,200/-) is to be filled by induction of traffic apprentices, of which 15% will be from the open market through the Railway Recruitment Boards and 10% through limited departmental competitive examinations from amongst serving non-ministerial graduates. It is hence contended that SM-II Grade had an element of direct recruitment and there was no impediment in transferring the applicants as the junior _**OP(CAT)4385/12 & OP(CAT)40/16**_ 13 most SM-II at the transferred division. 12. The terminology used in Paragraphs 226 and 312 is 'in the relevant grade in the promotion group in the new establishment'. The applicants having sought for transfer to the promotion group of Assistant Station Master, the relevant grade in the promotion group as far as the applicants are concerned can only be that of ASM. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to decide the question as to whether SM-II had an element of direct recruitment or is an intermediary post ineligible for effecting transfer. 13. The Tribunal having placed reliance on the decisions of the Madras High Court in W.P.Nos.16172 of 1998 and 27002 of 2007, it is only appropriate that those decisions are considered. The judgment in W.P.No.16172 of 1998 was rendered relying on an earlier decision in _**Union of India and Others v. Registrar, CAT, Madras and Another**_ [2002 (3) LLN 352], wherein the Madras High Court had held as follows; _“8. The argument raised on behalf of the writ petitioner Railway Board must fail for the simple reason that it is a trite principle that where the concerned person has to be put at the bottom of the seniority for doing so he cannot be straight away reverted to the post in which_ _**OP(CAT)4385/12 & OP(CAT)40/16**_ 14 _he was working earlier. Here is clear example where a person who was working as Assistant Station Master and had earned two promotions, is being posted in the post which is two stages below the post of Station Master, merely because of his request transfer. This is to say the least absurd interpretation of the rule.”_ In W.P.No.27002 of 2007 the court held that it is settled principle of law that even if transfer is effected on the request of an employee, the pay of the employee must be protected. 14. We are of the opinion that the principle adopted by the Madras High Court cannot be applied under all circumstances. In the case at hand the applicants, after seeking transfer as ASM had neither withdrawn their claim for transfer or supplemented their request with a fresh application seeking transfer as SM-II. In such circumstances, the Railways cannot be faulted for transferring the applicants as per their request. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in _**Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. Farid Sattar**_ [2000 4 SCC 13]. The facts of that case shows that, Farid Sattar, while working as Senior Accountant, had applied for transfer on reversion to the lower post of Accountant. The pay scale of the Senior Accountant was Rs.1400-2600, whereas the pay scale of _**OP(CAT)4385/12 & OP(CAT)40/16**_ 15 Accountant was Rs.1200-2040. By mistake, the pay was fixed at Rs.1560, which Farid Sattar had been drawing as Senior Accountant prior to his reversion. Subsequently, the mistake was sought to be corrected and thereupon, Farid Sattar approached the CAT. The Tribunal allowed the original application taking the view that since unilateral transfer is not contemplated by the Fundamental Rules, the case has to be treated as a transfer on request governed by FR-22(I)(a)(3). Aggrieved, the Comptroller and Auditor General filed appeal and the Honourable Supreme Court, after consideration of the rival contentions, held as follows; _“5._ ….. _Here, what we find is that the respondent on his own volition sought transfer on certain terms and conditions accepted by him. The terms and conditions of unilateral transfer are very clear and there is no ambiguity in it. The terms and conditions provided that the respondent on transfer would be appointed to a post which is lower to the post which he was occupying prior to his transfer and he was also required to tender technical resignation from the post which he was holding with a view to join the lower post as a direct recruit and was to rank junior to the juniormost employee in the cadre of Accountant. He was further required to forego any benefit of passing any departmental examination while working in_ _**OP(CAT)4385/12 & OP(CAT)40/16**_ 16 _the higher post. In such a situation, the pay of the respondent had to be fixed with reference to the lower pay scale and not with reference to the pay drawn by him in the higher post since he was to be considered as a direct recruit in the lower post._ _6. Under the terms and conditions of the transfer, the pay which the respondent was drawing on the higher post was not required to be protected when he joined the lower post of Accountant.”_ 15. In the instant case also, the applicants applied for transfer, accepted the transfer and joined at the Trivandrum Division agreeing for reversion as ASM and consequential reduction in the pay scale. As such, the applicants are estopped from challenging their reversion and from contending that they should have been transferred as SM-II. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement by the Honourable Supreme Court in _**Farid Sattar** ,_ the applicants cannot draw support from the decisions of the Madras High Court. We also find substantial merit in the contention of the Railways that if the transfer of the applicants as ASM is converted to SM-II, that would prejudice persons who have filed their request for transfer as SM-II and are awaiting their turn. 16. Having found that the original application was liable to be _**OP(CAT)4385/12 & OP(CAT)40/16**_ 17 rejected for the aforesaid reasons, we are not delving into the ground of delay, though we have reservations regarding the finding on delay rendered by the Tribunal. In the result we uphold the challenge against the impugned orders of the Tribunal and set aside the same. The original applications are allowed, finding the transfer on reversion of the applicants as ASM in the Pay Band Rs.5200-20200 + 2800 (GP) on bottom seniority to be proper. No order as to costs. Sd/- **K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE** Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** _vgs_ **x** _**OP(CAT)4385/12 & OP(CAT)40/16**_ 18 ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 4385/2012** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO. T-24/2010/SM DATED 2.6.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.T/OPTG/94/2008 DATED 3/4-7-2008 ISSUED BY SR.DPO/MAS.** - **ANNEXURE A3(A) COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 15.10.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST APPLICANT.** - **ANNEXURE A3(B) COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 15.10.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND APPLICANT.** - **ANNEXURE A4 EXTRACTS OF RULES 226 AND 229 OF IREC, VOL.I AND PARA 312 OF IREM, VOL.I.** - **ANNEXURE A5 EXTRACT OF PARA 122 OF IREM AND NOTE (III) THEREUNDER.** - **ANNEXURE A6(A) COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 08.7.2005 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 16172/1996 AND CONNECTED CASES PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS.** - **ANNEXURE A6(B) COPY OF JUDGMENT DT. 20.8.2009 IN WP.NO.27002/2007 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT O JUDICATURE AT MADRAS.** - **ANNEXURE A7 COPY OF LETTER NO. P(G)532/II/AOM/30%(LDCE) DATED 1.8.2011 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT AND CIRCULATED UNDER 3RD RESPONDENT'S LETTER NO. V/P.532/II/LDCE/OPTG.GR.B/AOM/30%/VOL.2 DATED 5.8.2011.** - **ANNEXURE A8 COPY OF 1ST APPLICANT'S APPLICATION DATED 31.8.2011.** - **ANNEXURE A9 COPY OF RAILWAY BOARD'S LETTER NO.E(NG)I 2006/PM/1/5 DATED 21.3.2006.** **ANNEXURE R1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE 1ST APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR THE TRANSFER APPLIED IN THE PRESCRIBED PROFORMA DATED 21.10.1999. ANNEXURE R2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE 2ND APPLICANT'S REQUEST FRO THE TRANSFER APPLIED IN THE PRESCRIBED PROFORMA DATED 21.07.1998.** _**OP(CAT)4385/12 & OP(CAT)40/16**_ 19 - **ANNEXURE R3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TRANSFER APPLICATION IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN OA 234/2010.** - **ANNEXURE R4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TRANSFER APPLICATION IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT SUBMITTED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT IN OA 234/2010.** - **ANNEXURE A10(A) COPY OF LETTER NO.CP/676/2/CC/EPS DATED 26.3.2007 ISSUED BY DRM(P)/SECUNDERABAD.** - **ANNEXURE A-10(B) COPY OF WILLINGNESS LETTER DATED 25.3.2007 FROM JIJU VARGHESE TO DRM(P)/SC.** - **ANNEXURE A-11(A) COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 15.7.2008 BY THE 1ST APPLICANT TO SRI.DPO/CHENNAI.** - **ANNEXURE A-11(B) COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 08.9.2008 BY THE 2ND APPLICANT.** - **ANNEXURE A12 COPY OF ADVANCE CORRECTION SLIP NO.95 ISSUED BY RAILWAY BOARD.** - **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO. 807/2011 FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN OA NO. 807/2011 FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRTIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER IN OA 807/2011 FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT IN OA 807/2011 FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 27TH JUNE, 2012 IN OA NO. 807/2011.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO. T.20/2010/SMS(NO.V/P 676/II/IDT/SM DATED 12.5.2010).** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COP OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.M/P/OPTG./82/2010 (NO.M/P 676/I/OPTG./IDT/SMS/VOL.III DT. 19.5.2010).** _**OP(CAT)4385/12 & OP(CAT)40/16**_ 20 ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 40/2016** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.T2/2012 DATED 31.01.2012 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO. T 5/2012/SMS DATED 14.02.2012 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.J/P.608/VIII/ TRAFFIC APPRENTICE/ LDCE/ VOL.I DATED 7TH JULY, 2006, ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.J/P.608/VIII/ TRAFFIC APPRENTICE/ LDCE/ VOL.I DATED 16.08.2007 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26TH NOVEMBER, 2009 IN O.A.NO. 396/2009 RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. ANNEXURE A6 LETTER DATED 28.02.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.05.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER BEARING NOT.20/2010/SMS DATED 12.05.2010, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O A 957/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN OA 957/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11TH AUGUST, 2015 IN OA 957/2012 ON THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** _**OP(CAT)4385/12 & OP(CAT)40/16**_ 21 ## **EXHIBIT P4** **TRUE COPY OF THE PRIORITY LIST OF REGISTRANTS FOR INTERDIVISION ONE WAY TRANSFER FROM PALAKKAD TO TRIVANDRUM DIVISION.**