Satyanarayan S/o Shri Munnilal vs Union Of India Through General Manager, North-Western Railway, Jawahar Circle, Jaipur & Ors.

Rameshwar Vyas, J

By way of filing the instant OA, the applicant is seeking direction against the respondents to promote him on the post of Senior Technician in the Moulder Cadre in terms of Railway Board policy decision regarding the diminishing cadre/surplus cadre ignoring respondents’ various letters being illegal. In alternate, he prays to quash and set aside the Notification dated 14.09.2016 (Annex. A/2) and letter dated 20.05.2017 (Annex. A/1), whereby, provisional seniority list as on 20.05.2017 was published inviting objections within ten days.

The facts necessary to adjudicate this OA are as under:-

2.1 The applicant was appointed on the post of Khalasi in erstwhile grade of Rs 196-2023 on 15.07.1981 in Carriage & Wagon Workshop. He was promoted as Moulder Grade III in the year 1995 and further promoted as Moulder Grade II in the year 1997. Then, as per available avenue, the applicant was further promoted as Moulder Grade I in the year 2006. Since then, he has been working as Moulder Grade I.

2.2 The respondents vide Notification dated 14.09.2016 (Annex. A/2) have taken a decision to implement the scheme of multi-skilling by merging small and diminishing cadre in one new cadre with a view to optimum utilization of manpower and accordingly issued provisional seniority list as on 20.05.2017 of employees working in 13 trades including the Moulder. The applicant’s name stands at serial number 53 of the provisional seniority list as on 20.05.2017. Notification dated 14.09.2016 (Annex. A/2) stipulates that after merging 13 trades by multi-skilling, the employee working in a particular trade will remain on their existing post and their inter-se seniority will be prepared from the date of their promotion in the cadre. Promotion to the higher vacant post will be made in accordance with the seniority so fixed.

2.3 It is the case of the applicant that merged 13 trades have been shown as diminishing cadre, therefore, these are covered under the definition of surplus cadre, but to escape from the formalities required for surrendering of post in surplus cadre and creation of post for new cadre, the respondents have tried to circumvent the impact of the existing different circulars and the policy benefiting the diminishing or the surplus cadre. The respondents without any concrete policy decision, in a hasty manner, created a new cadre as Mechanical Fitter with the scheme known as multi-skilling. It is an arrangement to eyewash the requirement of re-deploying surplus cadres. It is further averred that the applicant submitted representation on 17.05.2017 (Annex. A/7) for providing him the benefit of promotion to the post of Senior Technician mentioning about the diminishing of his cadre. The respondents vide reply dated 19.06.2017 denied the benefit on the pre-existing cadre of the Moulder Trade. The applicant while referring to various orders of Railway tried to establish that the merger of these 13 trades in the name of multi-skilling is mere eyewash to circumvent the existing policy decision of the respondents themselves.

2.4 It is further averred that the seniority of staff intended to be merged in one cadre is required to be kept separate for the reason to protect the promotional prospectus of the staff as per the guidelines issued by Railway Board from time to time. The post of Senior Technician has been vacated by the retirement in the Moulder cadre in the month of February, 2017 and the applicant being senior most in the Moulder cadre, is due to be promoted against that post. The applicant would retire on 31.07.2017 and if he is not granted promotion to the post of Senior Technician, then he would be put to serious pecuniary loss as well as loss of the status achieved throughout his life.

2.5 With the above case, the applicant has filed this OA with a prayer to direct the respondents to promote him to the post of Senior Technician and in alternate, prayed to quash and set aside Notification dated 14.09.2016 (Annex. A/2) and provisional seniority list dated 20.05.2017 (Annex. A/1).

2.6. As per reply filed by the respondents, the applicant has no case as decision for adopting multi-skilling and trading in the workshops is a policy matter in respect of which the Railway Board vide letter dated 18.05.2001 approved and adopted the policy of multi-skilling and the same was directed to be carried out in all workshops for mechanical and electrical trades. It is further averred that prior to implementation of the policy of multi-skilling, the recognized employees’ union were consulted and after the process of consultation and approval, the same was implemented. The Railway Board, after examining all the inputs and other relevant factors, directed to implement the policy of multi-skilling. Law in respect of challenge to policy is clear that interference in policy matters should only be within narrow limits, for example when there is a clear statute or a constitutional provision which already occupies the field or there is arbitrariness. The court should not ordinarily interfere with the policy decision unless the same is clearly illegal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if some persons are at a disadvantage and suffered losses on account of formulation and implementation of Government policy, that is not itself sufficient ground for interference by the court. Admittedly, the policy of multi-skilling has already been implemented, creating the rights of the employees who, subsequent to the policy decision, were enjoying seniority positions and got promotions. The applicant failed to implead persons likely to be affected as party respondent if prayer made in the instant OA is allowed. In compliance of RBE No. 116/2016 dated 30.09.2016, vide surrender memo No. 39/2017 issued on 24.04.2017 (Annex. R/1) the posts of Category/Design/Department of North Western Railway Carriage Repair Workshop, Jodhpur have been surrendered with immediate effect including the post of Moulder/Mechanic. The term diminishing cadre has no comparison with the surplus cadre. The applicant has been answered vide communication dated 19.06.2017 that in Moulder trade there is no vacancy of Senior Technician, hence, the applicant was not considered for promotion after implementation of the restructuring. It is the reply of the respondents that the seniority has never been assailed by the applicant. Pursuant to seniority list dated 20.05.2017 (Annex. R/2), promotions were also accorded vide order dated 26.07.2017 (Annex. R/3).

2.7 Contradicting the claim of the applicant, the respondents prayed to dismiss the OA.

2.8 The applicant filed a rejoinder reiterating his stand.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the multi-skilling scheme was never in existence. The method adopted by the respondents in preparing seniority list after merging various trades is not in consonance with the various orders issued by the Railway Board from time to time. On account of illegality in adopting multi-skilling, the respondents have deprived the applicant from his legitimate right to be promoted to the post of Senior Technician. The representation made by the applicant on 17.05.2017 (Annex. A/7) has not been considered by the respondents and prepared/published the seniority list on 20.05.2017 (Annex. A/1) against the law. The applicant was eligible and entitled to get promotion to the post of Senior Technician as vacancy was available in the cadre/trade of Moulder. Thus, learned counsel for the applicant prayed to allow the OA.

On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant has challenged the policy of multi-skilling without establishing any illegality in the policy. The applicant has failed to make out any case against the policy decision of the respondents in his favour. It is further submitted that the applicant has not challenged the provisional seniority list dated 20.05.2017 (Annex. A/1) by filing any representation. Thereafter, final seniority list has been prepared and based upon which, some promotions were also accorded to other employees who are likely to be affected in case prayer of the applicant is allowed. The applicant has filed this OA without impleading them as party respondent.

Having regard to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and material available on record, it emerges that the decision to implement multi-skilling was taken vide Notification dated 14.09.2016 (Annex. A/2) after consultation with the employees’ union. The applicant failed to show that he filed any objection against the proposed multi-skilling process. In his representation dated 17.05.2017 (Annex. A/7) also, he did not object to implementation of the policy decision. The primary prayer of the applicant in the instant OA is to get the promotion to the post of Senior Technician and not to challenge the policy decision which shows that the applicant is more interested in promotion than to challenge the policy. The basis of his challenge to the policy decision of the respondents is limited to the extent that this policy is not advantageous to him. In our considered view the applicant cannot challenge a particular policy decision before this tribunal on the sole ground that it does not benefit him, that too, without objecting to the same before appropriate authorities. This tribunal cannot interfere with a policy for the reason that it is not beneficial to a particular employee. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this tribunal finds no ground to interfere with the decision taken by the respondents to merge the trades/cadres. The decision was taken with a view to give better opportunities of promotion to the employees working in the various trades. Simply because the applicant failed to get promotion after implementation of multi-skilling, the same cannot be termed as illegal. Generally policy decisions are not interfered with by the courts in absence of any violation of statute or being arbitrary in nature. It is pertinent to note here that while preparing a provisional seniority list dated 20.05.2017 (Annex. A/1), the objections were invited from the employees to file the same within a period of ten days but the applicant did not file any objection to the provisional seniority list and directly filed this OA, which is not permissible. Not filing any objection to the provisional seniority list would indicate that the applicant was not aggrieved with the same.

It is also pertinent to note that final seniority list was prepared on 20.05.2017, based upon which vide office order dated 26.07.2017 (Annex. R/3), the promotions have already been accorded to some employees. The applicant has filed this OA without impleading them as party respondent whereas , their right would be affected in case of allowing the instant OA. In absence of a necessary party, the instant OA seeking promotion by the applicant is not maintainable.

In view of the above, we find no merit in this OA, hence, dismissed with no order as to costs.