HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.3630 OF 2006 Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, 33 PETITIONERS Union of India and others VERSUS ^il ?. RESPONDENTS Sameer Pandey and others. ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR, 3 °) -^' ^ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge tv.~f.20V9 Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge -33'4.2009 POST ON ^ l APRIL, 2009 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge »31.4.2009 ^:2- HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETITION N0.3630 01= 2006 Divisioh Bench:Hon'bleShri DhirendraMishra & Mon'ble SHriR.N.ChantlrakaF. J3 PETlTIONE^i RESPONDENTS >< 1. Union of India, through the Geheral Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (CG) 2. Senior Divlsjonal Personnel Manager, SECR, Bilaspur(CG) 3. Divisional Personnel Manager, Raipur Division, SECR, Raipur (CG) VERSUS 1. Sameer Pandey, Ticket Collector Office of Chief Ticket Inspector Railway Station, Durg. 2. VikasKumar, TicketCollector Office of Chief Ticket Inspector (Line) Railway Station, Raipur. 3. Dinesh KumarGupta, TiCketCollector Office of Chief Ticket Inspector (Line) Railway Station, Durg. 4. Gevarrat Mal, Ticket CollectorOffice of Chief Ticket Inspector (Line) Railway Station, Raipur. 5. S. Arun Mudaliar, Ticket Collectoi- Office of Chief Ticket Inspector(Line) Railway Station, Raipur. 6. Sunil Singh,Ticket CollectorOfficeof Chief Ticket Inspector (Line) Railway Station, Durg. 7. Sirish Roy, Ticket Collector Office of Chief Ticket Inspector (Line) Railway Station, Durg. 8. Pradeep Dhanwar, Ticket Collector Officeof ChiefTicket Inspector (Line) Railway Station, Durg. 9. Mahesh Kumar, Ticket Collector Office of Chief Ticket Inspector Railway Station, Durg. ^3 10. P.N. Rai, Ticket Collector Office of Chief Ticket Inspector (Line) Railway Station, Durg. 11. Ashok Kumar, Ticket Collector Office of Chief Ticket Inspector (Line) Railway Station, Durg. 12. Mahadeo Kumar, Ticket Collector Office of Chief Ticket Inspector (Line) Railway Station, Durg. 13. J.K. Bagh, Senior T.T.E. Office of Chief Ticket Inspector (Line) Railway Station, Durg. 14. Neeraj Kumar, Coach Attendant, Office of Chief Ticket Inspector (Line) Railway Station, Raipur. Preseht: Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners/Railways. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents. O RDER (Passed on^)stApril, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Dhirendra Mishra, J:- i. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8 March, 2006 (Annexure P/l) passed in OA No.294/2005, whereby Central Administrative Tribunal (in short "Tribunal"), has held that the respondents shall get their seniority from the date when they were selected, but they are entitled for wages from the date they assumed the charge of higher responsibility. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Railway administration to fill up 17 vacancies of T.T.I./Sr.T.C. conducted suitability test on 22.5.2003 and written examination on 22.6.2006 and accordingly, provisional result of written suitability test for promotion to the above posts 4^ was prepared on 18.9.2003 for 46 candidates. The promotion order was passed on 8.12.2003 in respect of 30 staff. The candidates, who were promoted, submitted a joint representation and requested for giving them promotion w.e.f. 23.7.2003 instead of 8.12.2003 with difference of wages for the said period. After serving legal notice upon the petitioners, an application was filed by the respondents before the Tribunal for direction to the petitioners to give them promotion w.e.f. 23.7.2003 instead of 8.12.2003 with difference of wages for the said period. 3. Learned Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the application ofthe respondents with the aforesaid directions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly held that delay in promoting the respondents was caused due to administrative lapses. In fact, the delay has occasioned as a result of representation made by the South Eastern Central Railway Men's Union alleging therein certain irregularities in the above selection process. The said representation was examined by the Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer and only thereafter, appointment order was issued on 8.12.2003 with the approval of the Divisional Railway Manager. Referring to Rule 302 of the Rules Regulating Seniority of Non-Gazetted Railway Servants, it was argued that in categories of the posts partially filled by direct recruitment and partially by promotion, the criterion for determination of seniority should be the date of regular promotion after due process in the case of promotee and the date of joining the working post after due process in the case of direct recruit; subject to maintenance of inter-se-seniority of promotees and direct recruit among themselves. In the instant case, the provisional result with respect to 46 staff of written suitability test for promotion was published on 18.9.2003. It was specifically mentioned in the above order that this result hS is provisional and serial order of staff concerned will be changed when the final order will be published. The final order of promotion and posting was issued on 8.12.2003, that too, with respect to 30 candidates. As per Rules Regulating Seniority of Non-Gazetted Railway Servants, seniority is to be considered from the date of regular promotion after due process and therefore, finding of the Tribunal that the respondents shall get their seniority from the date when they were selected i.e. 18.9.2003 is contrary to the rules in this regard. 5. On the other hand, Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate, appearing for the respondents contended that the process for promoting the respondents was initiated on 22.5.2003 when a notice was issued to the respondents regarding written suitability test to be held on 22.6.2003. Promotion was to be made within 30 days as per sub-para (ii)(a) of Para-216.A of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, 1989. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioners were responsible for delay in granting promotion to the respondents. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned order, the documents filed by the petitioners as also the relevant Rules Regulating Seniority of Non-Gazetted Railway Servants and relevant excerpts of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, 1989. 7. From the order dated 18.9.2003, it is clear that it is a provisional result of written suitability test for promotion. It clearly stipulates that the result is provisional and final result is to be published, and thereafter, promotion and posting order was issued on 8.12.2003 with respect to 30 staff. Under sub-para (ii)(a) of Para-216.A of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, 1989, certain guidelines have been issued for ordering ad hoc promotion, according to which, ^6 ^J/ "~:t%s:s^'"'' - promotion is to be made by following the prescribed procedure quickty. The Chief Personnel Officer has been directed to keep record of having accorded approval to such ad hoc promotion and review the progress made in filling up these posts by selected persons every month. s. The question for consideration before this Court is - whether the respondents could be accorded seniority from the date when provisional result of written suitability test for promotion was published, merely on the ground that there was delay of less than three months in passing the formal order of promotion and posting only on the basis of guidelines issued under Indian Railway Establishment Manual, 1989, contrary to the Rules Regulating Seniority of Non-Gazetted Railway Servants? 9. Keeping in view the fact that the order of promotion and posting was passed on 8.12.2003 and the respondents joined their promoted posts only after passing of the promotion order, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the respondents should be given seniority from the date of their selection. io. In the result, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 8.3.2006 (Annexure P/l) of the Tribunal is quashed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge - Sd/- R-N. Chandrakar Judge •tll