Union Of India & Ors. vs Rijo T.

This Review Application is filed under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 by the respondents in the Original Application. The Original Application was filed by the counter petitioner herein seeking to quash Annexure-A8 order rejecting his plea for cutting short the period of training and to appoint him in a regular post on completion of six months training and also for a direction to incorporate the qualifications acquired by him in the service records.

The original applicant who is the counter petitioner herein is a Trainee Technician in Electrical Department of the Southern Railway, who was appointed as such under compassionate appointment scheme and was deployed for training for a period of three years. But, according to him, he possesses higher qualifications, Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering besides Diploma in Civil Engineering as seen in Annexures-A4 and A5 documents. Based on Annexure-A6 communication of the Railway Board he contended that he is liable to undergo training only for six months since he holds higher qualification. But ignoring his qualifications as evident from Annexures-A4 and A5 he has been deployed for training for three years, which is illegal and thus he approached the Tribunal with the above Original Application seeking to quash Annexure-A8 document, to set aside the order asking him to undergo training for three years and to modify Annexures-A2 and A3 correcting the training period of the applicant as six months and such other reliefs.

Respondent, who is the original applicant, filed his objection opposing the claims in the R.A.

After hearing counsel on both sides, by Annexure-RA1 order dated 29.11.2023 this Tribunal quashed Annexure-A8, upheld his contentions and said that having regard to the fact that he possesses Diploma and had made representation and since Annexure-A8 was passed on 19.08.2022, the respondents were directed to appoint the applicant as a Technician Grade-III in Electrical/GS from 19.08.2022. A further direction was also given to enter his qualifications in their service records. It was also said that he will be entitled to enure to his credit all service benefits flowing from such appointment.

Aggrieved by the same, the official respondents have moved this Review Application. According to them, such an order is an error apparent on the face of records. From Annexures-A2 and A3 it is clear that he was appointed as an Apprentice Trainee Technician Grade-III/AC. But the Original Application was allowed with the observation that he has been appointed to the post of Apprentice Trade Technician-III in Electrical/GS branch, which is a factual error as evident from the Annexure-A3 appointment order. Thus they contended that Annexure-RA1 order dated 29.11.2023 contains a manifest error, which goes to the root of the issue and is apparent on the face of records which requires to be reviewed by the Tribunal. It was also pointed out that from the contentions in paragraph 4.2 of the Original Application and Annexure-A7 representation, it is very clear that the applicant was appointed as Apprentice Technician Grade-III/AC in the Electrical Department of Trivandrum Central Division. In Annexure-A3 order dated 16.08.2021 it is clearly stated that his appointment is as Technician Grade-III/AC, but this Tribunal directed that he should be appointed to the post of Technician Grade-III/GS, which is a factual error apparent on the face of records.

The Review Application has been opposed by the Original Applicant, the review respondent. According to him, though he was proposed to be appointed as Apprentice Technician Grade-III/GS as per Annexure-A2, he was posted as Technician Grade-III/AC in Electrical Department. It is submitted that the branches like train lighting, power and air conditioning come under the same Electrical department and is controlled by the Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer of the division. So, the reference as GS in the post of Technician Grade-III cannot make any difference in the interpretations and the findings made by the Tribunal while deciding the issue of the length of the training period to be undergone by the applicant. At the best, it can be only treated as a typographic error.

I heard the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the review applicants and the learned counsel for the original applicant, in detail.

There cannot be any dispute that an error has crept in the order dated 29.11.2023. Direction has been given by this Tribunal after quashing Annexue-A8, on the assumption that the applicant has been appointed as a Trainee Technician Grade-III in Electrical/GS from 19.08.2022. Perhaps this Tribunal was carried away by Annexure-A2 offer of appointment as Apprentice Technician-III/ELEC/GS Electrical Department/TVC Division. In clause 6 of the document also it is stated that he will be eligible for appointment as Technician III/Electrical/GS on a salary of Rs.19,900/- etc. At the same time, Annexure-A2 is only an offer of appointment, which was followed by Annexure-A3 appointment order. Even though in Annexure-A2 the offer was to the post of Technician-III/Electrical/GS, the actual order of appointment is as Trainee Technician Grade-III/AC on a stipend of Rs.18,000/-. What is relevant is Annexure-A3. Without appropriately realising this aspect as reflected in Annexure-A3, this Tribunal proceeded to allow the O.A. and directed him to be absorbed cutting short his period of training as Technician-III/Electrical/GS.

Now there is no dispute that the original applicant undergoes training as Technician-III/AC. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, Annexure-A7 representation given by the original applicant also indicates that he is undergoing apprenticeship training as Technician-III/Electrical/AC. Thus he was not appointed as Technician-III/Electrical/GS nor undergoes training in that category.

The learned Standing Counsel also has taken to me the Centralised Employment Notice No.1/2018 which clearly indicates that Technician Grade-III/Electrical and Technician Grade-III/AC are different posts. Even though both are falling in Electrical Department, the serial No.63 is a different category viz. Technician Grade-III/Refrigeration and Air Conditioning where the qualification is Matriculation/SSLC plus ITI from recognised institutions of NCVT/SCVT in the trades of Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Mechanic/Electrician/Wireman/Electronics Mechanic OR Matriculation/SSLC plus Course Completed Act Apprenticeship in the trades mentioned above. It is also very pertinent to note that what is relevant is the Annexure-A3 order of appointment given to the applicant.

Moreover, the intention of the Board is that if a compassionate appointee has a higher qualification like Diploma in the relevant discipline, he need to undergo training only for six months. The applicant was appointed as a Technician Grade-III/AC. The question is whether he did possess such a higher qualification. But Annexures-A4 and A5 qualification certificates do not indicate that he has acquired any qualification in Air conditioning or Refrigeration. Annexure-A4 is the certificate proving his Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, whereas Annexure-A5 is the proof of his Diploma in Civil Engineering. Both these are in different fields so that he has to be thought that while appointing as a Trainee Technician Grade-III in AC, he should be taken as a novice and his Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering or Civil Engineering is of little use to perform his duty as Technician in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning.

One of the three prerequisites for considering an application for review is error apparent on the face of the records. Here, such an error has crept in the order, which should be conceded by the Tribunal. It is also more important that when the Court or Tribunal commits a mistake, that should not be ignored lightly and should not cause prejudice to one of the parties to the litigation. Here, if such a mistake, which is very apparent, if not corrected, would hamper the interests of the respondents in the O.A., who are the review applicants. Therefore, I have no doubt that such a mistake is liable to be corrected. Annexure-RA1 order is liable to be reviewed and modified to that extent.

In the result, Annexure-RA1 order is modified and the order directing to cut short his period of training till 19.08.2022 is hereby reviewed and set aside. However, it is made clear that the other direction to enter his qualifications in the service records need not be modified.

The review application is allowed to the above extent. No costs. This order will form part of the order dated 29.11.2023.

Annexure RA1: True copy of the Order dated 29.11.2023 in O.A.No. 180/735/2022