AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member.
The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, praying for the following relief(s):-
“(a) To issue direction upon the respondent authority to consider the representations dated 23-02-16, 27-08-2015, 22-01-2015 and 05-11-2012 forthwith.
(b)To issue further direction upon the respondent to give the post of passenger Driver instead of Loco Pilot (E.M.U.) where the applicant is senior most candidate and all Goods Drivers have been taken option by the respondent authority, applicant's case is not considered by the respondent authority.
(c)To issue further direction upon the respondent, that the applicant's case for Passenger Driver instead of Loco Pilot (E.M.U.), where Goods Drivers have been given option by the respondent authority but the applicant not given opportunity. So applicant's case may be considered forthwith.
(d)Any other order or orders as the Learned Tribunal deem fit and proper.
(e) To produce connected departmental record at the time of hearing”.
Ld. Counsel for both sides are present and heard.
Brief facts in nutshell are as follows:-
The applicant was aggrieved due to the fact that the respondent authority was going to fill-up 25 vacancies of Loco pilot passenger (Loco) where no such posts in Indian Railway as the applicant was the senior-most candidate and working in passenger train. But repeatedly, the applicant had made requests to the authority concerned for the said post of Passenger driver and till date, no decision had been taken by the respondent authority and in the Indian Railway, 03 posts like as Loco Pilot Passenger, Loco Pilot Mail Express, the respondent authority were going to fill-up for the post of Loco pilot passenger (Loco) without considering the case of the applicant.
The applicant had appeared in aptitude test. But if the respondent authority had considered the said post without considering the case of the applicant, the respondent Goods authority would directly take option from the Goods driver i.e, against the rule.
Firstly, passenger driver had been given option for the said post and senior-most candidate should be given the opportunity. But, no such option had been taken from the applicant for the said post though the applicant was the senior-most candidate and working in passenger train from Sealdah to Lalgola. But till date, no option had been taken from the applicant.
Being aggrieved by and highly dissatisfied with the non-action of the respondent authority, the applicant wanted to move the matter on the following facts and grounds.
After notice, the respondents had appeared through their Counsel, filed a detailed reply and opposed the relief. The brief facts are as follows:-
The post of Loco Pilot Passenger had been bifurcated in two parts vide CPO's letter No. E. 839/LP/Elect/Crew Review dated 17.07.2016 and 27.07.2016 which are as under:-
Loco Pilot Passenger (EMU)
Loco Pilot Passenger (Loco) (R-1).
The applicant had preferred an appeal for his posting as Loco Pilot Passenger in Locomotives instead of EMU/MEMU.
The applicant had completed the promotional training for Loco Pilot EMU and aptitude test and had passed at the material time (R-2 & R-3) and accordingly, he was posted as LPP (Motorman) and all the Loco Pilot Passenger was meant to be utilized in EMU (R-4).
The options were called for from LPOS for LPP (Loco) and as the applicant was working in LPP, the question of calling for option did not arise for the post of 25 LPP (Loco).
In the crew review of Eastern Railway for Sealdah Division, 25 posts were allotted for LPP (Loco) (R-1). The options were called for from LPO (s) and not from LPP (s) and as the applicant belongs to LPP category, his case was not considered.
The options were called for vide letter No. E/11A/Pass Driver (Elect)/Selection/Pt. VII dated 14.09.2016 whereas the applicant was working in LPP since 02.07.2014 and as such, his case was not considered.
The post of LPP (Loco) was created through the crew review of Eastern Railway for Sealdah Division on 27.07.2016 (R-1) and when the applicant had applied for the same for the posts of LPP (Loco), were not in existence. So, the question of consideration of his claim did not arise at all.
Promotion for the post of Loco Pilot Passenger (Loco) was conducted as per the promotional procedure as laid down in Railway Establishment Rules and regulation.
The applicant had already been posted as LPP (Motor Man) and getting monetary benefit in the same scale so that the question of deprivation does not arise at all.
Options were called for from Goods Driver and as the applicant was working as Passenger Driver at the material point of time, the question of posting to the post of LPP (Loco) was not considered.
Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had been promoted to the post which was not at all available. The same had been admitted in the reply filed by the respondents.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant had been given some promotion and he was enjoying the benefits. So, there was no question to raise such type of queries.
Considering the submission made by Ld. Counsel for the respondents, the Original Application is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.