AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Heard, Shri Santosh Kumar Kushwaha, counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, counsel for the respondents.
The instant original application has been filed seeking following reliefs: -
“(i)This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to fix the seniority of the applicants en-bloc above to the persons/employees joined the posts of Mechanist-III after the joining of the applicants” as per Para 303 (a) of the I.R.E.M. Vol. I or to take final decision on the representation preferred by the applicants on 13.11.2025.
(ii)Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.
(iii)Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.”
The brief facts of the case are that the applicants were initially appointed to the post of Technician-III in the respondents’ organization in the year 2005 and are presently working as Mechanist-I in the Mechanical Department of BLW, Varanasi. The Railway Recruitment Board, Allahabad issued a notification for recruitment to the post of Technician-III, pursuant to which the applicants participated in the selection process and, upon successfully qualifying the same, were declared successful in the final result dated 22.03.2005, whereafter their names were included in the panel dated 23.03.2005 and forwarded to the respondents for appointment. As per the prescribed procedure, the applicants were required to undergo six months’ training for appointment to the post of Technician-III, and accordingly, they were provisionally appointed on stipend and sent for training at the Mechanical Training Centre, DLW, Varanasi. However, owing to the acute shortage of technicians, Respondent No. 1 reduced the prescribed training period from six months to six weeks and, vide letters dated 04.08.2005 and 05.08.2005, directed the Principal, Mechanical Training Centre, DLW, Varanasi, to relieve the applicants after completion of six weeks’ training so as to enable them to join their respective places of posting. The applicants accordingly completed the six weeks’ training and were permitted to join their respective posts without undergoing the post-training examination and were posted against the posts allocated to them. Thereafter, the respondents issued the seniority list of Technician-III on 01.04.2008, wherein the applicants were placed below the employees appointed through the 50% departmental quota, which, according to the applicants, resulted in an incorrect fixation of their seniority. Being aggrieved by the said fixation of seniority, the applicants submitted a representation dated 19.01.2011 seeking correction of their seniority and their placement above the employees appointed through the 50% departmental quota. As no corrective action was taken, the applicants thereafter submitted an application under the Right to Information Act seeking information regarding the rules/instructions under which the employees appointed through the 50% departmental quota had been placed above the applicants, and in response thereto, the respondents, vide letter dated 25.03.2013, informed that the seniority list had been prepared in accordance with the instructions issued by the Railway Board and that the seniority so fixed was stated to be correct as per the applicable rules. Hence this O.A.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the seniority of the applicants are to be fixed in accordance with Para 303(a) of the IREM Vol.I on that ground, the applicants have moved the representation on 13.11.2025, which is still pending for consideration and therefore, desires that his representation may be decided by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a time bound manner.
Learned counsel for the respondents has no issue if an order to decide the representation of the applicant is passed without going into the merit of the case.
Without going into the merits of the case and considering the limited prayer made by the applicant, this Tribunal is of the view that the Original Application can be disposed of at this stage.
Accordingly, the Original Application No.1030 of 2026 is disposed of with a direction to Respondent no2./competent authority to consider the grievance of the applicant by deciding the pending representation of the applicants dated 13.11.2025 after considering the provision of Para 303 (a) of the I.R.E.M. as well as of the Rule position with regard to fixation of seniority of promotee/direct recruitee personnel within by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, OA is disposed of. No order as to costs.