CWP No.3423 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 3423 of 2008 Date of decision 19 .3.2010 Union of India ... Petitioner Versus Subhash Chand and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal ,Advocate for the petitioner 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The Northern Railways through its General Manager has challenged order dated 18.10.2007 (P.4) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal has held that the applicant- respondents Subhash Chand, Surjit Singh, Raj Kumar and Som Nath were senior to Kuldip Kaur and Roshni. The names of the aforesaid females find mention in the order dated 11.8.2003 which was subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal. It is appropriate to mention that vide order dated 11.8.2003 (A.1 with the Original Application), the applicant- respondents were declared surplus. They were working on the post of Khalasi and were deployed as Gangman which is a lower post. They placed reliance on order dated 18.8.2003 (A.4) showing availability of vacancies of Khalasis at Jalandhar which was caused by promotion of two Khalasis as Hammerman and Driver. Similar position was prevalent at Ferozepur in the office of Divisional Railway CWP No.3423 of 2008 2 Manager, Ferozepur- Jammu Tavi- Pathankot- Ludhiana- Phagwara and at Amritsar. Accordingly it was claimed that applicant- respondent could not be declared as surplus and posted on a lower post of Gangman. The duties of Gangman is on the railway line whereas the duty of khalasis in the department which is some what like the duties of Peon. It was also undisputed that Kuldip Kaur and Roshni were junior to the applicant- respondents in the cadre of Khalasis and they were not declared surplus. As a consequence the principle of 'last come first go' which is followed in the matter of retrenching surplus staff stood violated. The Tribunal after examining the aforesaid fact proceeded to record a categorical finding that both the lady employees were junior to the applicant- respondents and principle of 'last come first go' was not followed. The Tribunal also examined the record holding that vacancies of Khalasis were available with the petitioner and in such a situation, the action of the petitioners could not be sustained. The only defence pleaded by the petitioner was that the workmen employees could not be absorbed on the post of Gangman by taking into account the nature of job. Accordingly, the Original Application was allowed. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The workmen employees who were junior in seniority in the cadre of Khalasis could not be retained as Khalasis and their seniors could not be reverted. In any case a number of posts were lying vacant and the question of declaring the post surplus would not arise. The findings and direction of the Tribunal are in accordance with law and the same are accordingly upheld. CWP No.3423 of 2008 3 As a sequel to the above discussion, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jitendra Chauhan) 19.3.2010 Judge okg