Gunjan Kumar Dinu vs The Union Of India & Ors.

Per: Justice Narenda Kumar Johari, Member (J)

The brief facts of the case of the applicant are that the applicant was entered into the railway service on 09.07.2002 and got posting in Hyderabad Division of South Central Railway. After bifurcation, he got his posting under Nanded Division, Maharastra. Since the applicant basically is resident of Bihar, he submitted his request to the authorities concerned for his transfer under Inter Railway Own Request Transfer Policy from Nanded Division to Danapur Division of E.C.R. Hajipur. His request was accorded and on consent by the competent authority of Danapur Division, E.C.R. vide letter No.ECR/HRD/283/1047/ ASM/OPTG dated 30.04.2008, the applicant was transferred from Nanded, Maharastra to Danapur Division, E.C.R. vide Order dated 24.07.2008.

It has been contended that subsequently, vide Office Order No. 626/08, dated 18.11.2008 issued by Sr. Personnel Officer/ M&E, for G.M. (P) ECR, Hajipur, the applicant was posted at E.C.R. Headquarter at Hajipur due to the reason that one post of T.I. was transferred from Samastipur Division to Hajipur temporarily for six months whereas applicant was required to be posted under the Danapuar Division.

Further, in due course of time, the applicant was allowed his first MACP vide Order No. 936/2014 dated 11.11.2014 while he was working in Hajipur Division.

It has further been submitted that the M.A.C.P. to applicant was allowed in E.C.R. Headquarter but his seniority and lien could not be fixed anywhere neither in Danapur Division nor in E.C.R. Headquarter, Hajipur. After continuous service of about 9 years at E.C.R. Headquarter, Hajipur, the Assistant Personnel Officer/ M&E for G.M.(P) vide order No. 687/2017, dated 22.09.2017 passed an Order to repatriate the applicant to Samastipur Division with immediate effect. Thereafter the applicant had represented before the competent authority challenging his repatriation to Samastipur Division. The Sr. Personnel Officer/ M & E, for G.M. (P) East Central Railway, Hajipur vide Office Order No. 982/2017 dated dated 20.12.2017 cancelled the earlier Office Order No. 687/2017 dated 22.09.2017 and applicant has been ordered for his posting as Controller in Emergency Control/Hajipur. In this Order it has wrongly been mentioned in remark column that the lien of the appliant will be in Samastipur Division.

The applicant submitted his representation before the respondents authorities with specifically mention that his Inter Request Transfer was allowed to Danapur Division, hence his lien cannot be fixed under Samastipur Division. He prayed that either his lien may be ordered to be maintained under E.C.R. Headquarter, Hajipur where he is working since long time or the same may be fixed under Danapur Division in terms of the Order of Inter Railway Transfer. His above representation could not be decided by the authorities concerned and inter-se-seniority of the applicant was also kept undecided, due to the reason his future prospectus for promotion has blocked. The authority did not pay any heed. Hence, the applicant approached to this Tribunal and has filed the present O.A. with following reliefs:-

The Opposite Parties has in reply of Original Application filed their written statement with contention that having considered the request of the applicant. Thehe competent authority vide order dated 15.01.2020 issued by the General Manager (P) Hajipur approved the case of the applicant and lien of the applicant has been fixed at Danapur Division w.e.f. 29.07.2008, i.e. from the date of his reporting at E.C.R. The Opposite Party has submitted the copy of the above order as Annexure-R/1 with written statement. It has further been contended that since the grievance of the applicant has been resolved by the competent authority thus, O.A. has become infructuous.

The applicant further submitted that since he is continuously working in E.C.R. Headquarter, Hajipur since 2008 and he has also been given the benefit of M.A.C.P. while he was working at E.C.R. Headquarter Hajipur, therefore, as according to his main prayer in the present O.A. the respondent authorities may be directed to fix his lien at E.C.R. Headquarter, Hajipur instead of fixing his lien at Danapur Division of E.C.R. as it was his alternative prayer in the O.A.

It has also been contended by the appliant that it is wholly erroneous on the part of the Opposite Parties to fix his lien at Danapur instead of E.C.R. Headquarter, Hajipur. Apart from the above submissions, the applicant has reiterated the other contentions as he had made in the O.A.

Heard the arguments of learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record.

It transpires from the perusal of record that during the pendency of the O.A. the Opposite Party/competent authority vide Order dated 15.01.2020 (Annexure-R/1 with W.S.) has fixed the lien of applicant at Danapur Division from the date of his reporting at Danapur Division from Nanded Division, i.e. from 29.07.2008, hence the relief as sought by the applicant in para 8 (A) of present O.A. has become infructuous.

As far as the submission of counsel for the applicant that the applicant is working since long back, i.e. approximately 9 years in E.C.R. Headquarter, Hajipur and he has been granted his first M.A.C.P. while he was working at Hajipur, therefore, his lien be fixed at E.C.R. Headquarter, Hajipur, the record indicates that initially while working at Nanded, Maharastra, the applicant had applied for his transfer from South Central Railway to Danapur Division, E.C.R. in 2007 and vide letter No.ECR/ HRD/283/1047/ASM/OPTG dated 30.04.2008, the authority of Danapur Division had given their consent for the same, accordingly vide Order dated 24.07.2008 the authorities of Nanded Division, Maharastrar, S.C.R. by considering the request of applicant sympathetically transferred him from Nanded Division to Danapur Division. They have sent the L.P.C. of the applicant also to the Danapur Division on 05.01.2009. After relieving from Nanded Division, the applicant reported at E.C.R. Headquarter, Hajipur on 29.07.2008 where he was posted at Sanrakasha Vibhag (संरक्षा विभाग) for the reason that one post of T.I. was transferred from Samastipur Division to Hajipur temporarily for 6 months. Thereafter, the applicant was transferred vide order dated 22.09.2017 from ECR Headquarter Hajipur to Samastipur Division, E.C.R. While working at E.C.R. Headquarter, Hajipur, applicant was granted the financial upgradation under first M.A.C.P. i.e. Pay Rs. 16550+ G.P. Rs. 4600/- w.e.f. 22.07.2014 vide order dated 11.11.2014.

As per the contention of the applicant, in the mean time, vide order No. 687/2017 dated 22.09.2017, the applicant was transferred from Hajipur to Samastipur Division mentioning his repatriation to Samastipur. The order of the competent authority was acted upon. Thereafter, the authority has cancelled the aforesaid Order dated 22.09.2017 vide Office Order No. 982/2017 dated 20.12.2017 and applicant got his posting as Controller in Emergency Control/Hajipur.

Learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that since his main prayer in Para 8(B) of the O.A. is that his lien be fixed at E.C.R. Headquarter, Hajipur because he is working at E.C.R. Headquarter, Hajipur since long back and his first M.A.C.P. benefit was granted to him while he was working at E.C.R., Headquarter, Hajipur, therefore, fixing his lien at Danapur Division is wrong decision of authorities which is against the provisions of law/rule. During the argument, counsel for the applicant has failed to produce any such provision of law/rule which may make provision that only by working at particular place since long back and merely by getting financial benefit of M.A.C.P. he has acquired the right that his lien be fixed at that particular place.

Lien represents the right/title of a government employee to hold a regular post. The benefit of having a lien in a post/service/cadre is enjoyed by all the officers who are confirmed in the post/service/cadre of entry or who have been promoted to a higher post declared as having completed the probation where it is prescribed or those who have been promoted on regular basis to a higher post and where no probation is prescribed under the rules as the case may be. A government servant who has acquired a lien on a post, retains lien for that post while performing the duties on that post, while on foreign service or holding a temporary post or officiating in another post, during joining time of transfer to another post unless he is transferred subsequently to a post on lower pay in which case his lien is transferred to ^Bench the new post from the date on which he is relieved to his duties in the old post, while on leave and while under suspension. A permanent government servant appointed in another central government department/office has to resign from his parent department unless he reverts to the department within two or three years in exceptional cases. Such resignation shall not be deemed to be resignation for the purpose of pension if admissible. As a consequence, on the basis of lien continuity of service benefits are allowed to such employees in the matter of pension, leave, L.T.C. etc. as admissible under the rules.

In present case, admittedly, the applicant while working at Nanded Division, Maharastra has specifically requested for his transfer at Danapur Division. The authorities of Danapur Division by considering the case of applicant sympathetically, had given the consent to absorb him at Danapaur Division. Consequently, the applicant was transferred and relieved for Danapur Division with L.P.C. His lien has also been fixed at Danapur Division on his own request (para 8 (B) of O.A.). Therefore, in view of above, there exists no ground to direct the Opposite Parties to fix the lien of applicant at E.C.R. Headquarter, Hajipur by cancelling the fixation of his lien at Danapur Division.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the O.A. being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed.

No Order as to costs.