^ D^i'sion BencKC^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT^IFCHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUjt WRIT PETITION (S)No. ' 5~ 7/ / 2008 -< PETITIONER .-?*•"' yac'. —••'' L9 ^'^"^. ^^®^' ,, k'b \Q..I.;7""" B. V. RAMANA RAO S/o Late Shri. B. Sitarama Swamy Aged about 55 Years, Office Superintendent Grade-II, Oft'ice of Chief Engineer (Construction) S.E.C.Railway, BILASPUR (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS -^i.. ..'1:'' w.^. Pc^',- ..•i^ .-^^ \"-'' 1. Union oflndia, Through : The General Manager, S.E.C.Railway, Bilaspur Zone, G.M.Office, BILASPUR (CG) 2. The Chief Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur Zone, BILASPUR (CG) 3. The Sr. Personnel Officer, O/o the ChiefPersonael Officer, South East Ceatral Railway, Head Quarter's Office, Personnel Department, BILASPUR. 4. The ChiefEngineer (Construction), South East Central Railway, BILASPUR - Dist. Bilaspur (CG) 5. The Registrar, Ceatral Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Beach, Caravas Building, Civil Lines, JABALPUR (MP) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226_ L_227 _Q]LJIS CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. y mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1579 of2008 PETITIONER B.V-Ramana Rao. VERSUS RESPONDENT8 : Unionoflndia& Others. Judgment for consideration Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhe Shyam Sharma ^ Ot^^.<-- Sd/- R.S.Sharma Judge Post for pronouncement ofthejudgment on the -?7 day ofJuly, 2011 Sa;- ir-H- mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1579 of2008 PETITIONER : B.V.Ramana Rao. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Unionoflndia& Others. WRJT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Coram: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhe Shvam Sharma. JJ. Present: Shri B.P.Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri H.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 to 4. (Delivered on ...?.7.^ay ofJuly, 2011) Per Satish K. Aenihotri, J. 1. The instant petition arises from the order dated 26.12.2006 (Annexure P/17) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 119/2005 and the order dated 05.03.2007 (Annexure P/18) passed in Review Application No. 5/2007. Fiirther, a direction to the respondents to amend the memo dated 18.04.2004 (Aimexure P/12) whereby the lien of the petitioner has been notified in the Engineering Department ofthe Headquarter. 2. The facts, in brief are that the petitipner was originally appointed as Khalasi m Electrical Loco Shed at Tatanagar on 05.02.1970. He was promoted to the post Junior Clerk on 17.02.1983 and subsequently as Senior Clerk on 17.02.1983. According to the petitioner, his lien was maintamed in the Personnel Branch of Chakradharpur Division. Later on, the petitioner was transferred to Koraput Project on 28.08.1984. He was promoted as Head Clerk on 11.6.1990 and further promoted as Office Superintendent (for short '05"), Grade II on ad hoc basis in fhe Personnel Branch and posted at Laxmipur. In fhe year 1992, the petitioner was transferred to fhe Railway Electrification Department at Bilaspur as ad hoc OS Grade II, retaming his lien in the Personnel Branch of Chafcradharpur. Thereafter, he was posted in the Construction Organization under CE (Constructioa)/South Eastem Railway, at Bilaspur on the same capacity. In the meantime, new Railway zone was formed and options were invited ftom all the divisions of South Eastem Railway. The officers/employees opting for new zone were required to join new place ofposting on or before 30.04.2004 as is evident from memo dated 30.10.2003 (Aimexure R/l to the O.A. before fhe Tribunal). The petitioner submitted his option for his release only on 27.07.2004 beyond the cut off date i.e. 30.04.2004. The petitioner made a representation for retaming his lien in the personnel department on 25.10.2004 (Annexure P/13). The respondent No. 3, vide its letter dated 01.12.2004, rejected the representation of the petitioner and maintamed the petitioner's lien in the Engineering Department. Aggrieved by the said action offhe respondents, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur, in OA. No. 119/2005 which was dismissed vide order dated 26.12.2006 (Annexure P/17) holding fhat the petitioner was not entitled to any relief claimed as fhe other junior persons reported to fhe new South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (for short 'the SECR, BSP') Headquarter much before 30.04.2004 and the petitioner was availing his ad hoc promotion in the Construction Organization. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a review application being Review Application No. 5/2007 before the Tribunal which was also dismissed vide order dated 05.03.2007 (Annexure P/18). Thus, this petition. 3. Shri Rao, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal has dismissed the petition of the petitioner on a simple ground that he could notjoin the new zone before the cut offdate i.e. 30.04.2004. The lien ofthe petitioner was maintained in the new zone in Engineering Department by memo dated 18.10.2004 (Annexure P/12). Shri Rao would further submit that transferring his lien irom Personnel Department to Engineering Department is bad in law as he has lost reasonable chance for promotion and future benefits. In the Personnel Department, his juniors namely A.A.Ahmed, K.S.Borkar, Shri B.N.Sarkar and Shri S.K.Tiwari who were promoted as Head Clerk and thereafiter, B.N.Sarkar and S.K.Tiwari, were promoted as OS, Grade II. The petitioner was denied the said promotion on account ofunauthorized ta-ansfer of his lien to the Engineering Department. Shri Rao would next contend that by order dated 04.12.2003 (Aimexure P/8), the petitioner was transferred from Chakradharpur Division of SE Railway, to SECR, BSP, maintainmg his lien in the Personnel Department. Subsequent change in the lien by order dated C€ 18.10.2004 (Annexure P/12) caimot be done. The petitioner cannot be faulted for not being relieved from the Constmction Division to join fhe new place of posting and the petitioner can also not be penalized for the same. 4. On fhe other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, leamed counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner was accepted by the competent authority to acconimodate him in the SECR, BSP on option basis and his lien was transferred to SECR vide letter dated 30.10.2003 but the petitioner should have been released physically before fhe cut off date i.e. 30.04.2004 to join the new zone. The petitioner could not join physically before the cut off date. Thus, the grievance ofthe petitioner to maintain his lien in the Personnel Department cannot survive. In respect of the benefrts to other employees, Shri Ahluwalia would submit that the optees were screened by the competent aufhority to accommodate them in Headquarter office according to their competency and their postings were done and their lien were fDced as per the requirement of man powers in various departments ofthe Headquarter ofBce. Having regard to the need of new zonal ofBce, the petitioner's lien was maintained in the Electrical Department as he had worked in TSR Department of open line, Chakradharpur Division since 11.06.1990 though he never joined m open Ime and retained in construction organization in tus whole service. The petitioner has no right to hold a lien in a particular department and the petitioner has further failed to establish that he was initially appointed in the ^ Persoimel Department and thereafier, his lien in the Personnel Department was maintained throughout. The grievance of the petitioner that the persons as aforestated, who were junior to the petitioner in the Personnel Department were promoted, cannot be considered as they have not been impleaded as party respondents. 5. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. On pemsal of the documents, it is evident that the petitioner had never made any effort before 30.04.2004 as he has Alade application for his release only on 27.07.2004 (Annexure P/10) much after the cut off date i.e. 30.04.2004. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim parity with others. The Tribunal has rightly considered all the aspects of the matter and came to the right conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to any reliefas he has .^nade an application for his release from his old office to join the zonal headquarter only on 27.07.2004 much after the cut offdate f.e; 30.04.2004. 7. The Supreme Court in Paresh Chandra Nandi v. Controller of Stores, N.F. Raibvay, Pandu and Others , cited at the bar, in the facts of the case, wherein the question of law involved was whether the competent authority has power to traasfer a railway employee even though he holds a pemianent post from one such post to another under Rule 2011 of the Railway Fundamental Rules. In the said case, the Supreme Court held that once such •()970)3ggp87R employee is transferred from one permanent post to another pennanent post, he is entitled to a lien in respect of that another post to whichlie is permanently posted as a result ofthe transfer. In the case on hand, on creation ofanew zone i.e. SECR, options were invited from the employees and the petitioner alongwith others opted to join the new zonal office i.e. SECR Bilaspur and lien was also allotted to him as per his posting. In Haribans Misra & Others v. Railway Board & Others , cited at the bar, wherein the petitioner was claiming lien on a place, the Supreme Court held that a person may have a lien on a post but not lien on a place. It is only when the person is appointed on a permanent basis that he can claim lien on the post to which he is so appointed. In the case on hand, the petitioner was posted in SECR, Bilaspur, and he was granted lien on that basis, where he was posted. The petitioner has failed to establish that he was granted a lien in the Personnel Department at any point of time. The petitioner has not produced any document in support of his contention either before this Court or before the Tribunal. The original appointment of the petitioner was also not in the Personnel Department. The Tribunal has rightly considered all the aspects of the matter and dismissed the petition. The impugned order dated 26-12-2006 (Annexure - P/17) and the order dated (1989) 2 SCC 84 7 5-3-2007 (Annexure - P/18) are just & proper and there is no mfirmity or illegality warranting interference by tfus Court. 10. As an upshot, the writ petition is shom of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 11. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- R.S.Sharma Judge AmW Gowri