WP(C) 8899/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K.SHARMA 1. Sri Premanada Biswakarma S/o. T.S. Biswakarma Sub- Inspector RPF, Bongaigaon RPF Post Bongaigaon 2. Sri Mohan Chandra Saloi S/o. Padram Saloi Sub-Inspector RPF Jogihopa 3. Sri Amrik Kumar Barma S/o. Aswini Barman Sub-Inspector RPF Post Soliguri 4. Sri Satya Baruah S/o. Naren Baruah Sub-Inspector RPF Guwahati (P). 5. Sri Raj Kumar S/o. B.N. Varma Sub Inspector RPF New Guwahati. 6. Md. Ayizur Rehman S/o. Azizur Rehman Sub-Inspector RPF Rangia. 7. Sri V. Krishnangshu S/o. K.K. Singha Sub- Inspector RPF New Coochbehar (Petitioners with common cause of action) & Petitioners. VERSUS 1. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. The North East Frontier Railway Through the General Manager, Maligaon, Guwahati. 3. The Chief Security Commissioner, N.F. Railway Maligaon, Guwahati. 4.Sri Khagen Basumatary Sub- Inspector RPF Lumding Division Through the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, N.F. Railway Lumding. 5. Sri Babul Ch. Deuri Sub-Inspector RPF Lumding Division Through the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, N.F. Railway Lumding. 6. Sri Madhav Ch Swargiary Sub-Inspector RPF New Bongaigaon, Through the Divisional Security Commissioner, N.F. Railway Rangia. 7. Sri David Z. Sanga Sub-Inspector RPF Lumding, through the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner N.F Railway Lumding. 8. Sri Joseph Moyonchara Sub-Inspector RPFs New Guwahati. 9. Sri L. Jhon Yangthan Sub-Inspector RPF Tinsukia, through the Divisional Security Commissioner N.F. Railway, Tinsukia 10. Sri L.S. Singh Sub - Inspector RPF, Lumding Through the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner N.F. Railway, Lumding. 11. Sri S.K. Das Sub-Inspector RPF Lumding, through the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner N.F. Railway Lumding. Responde nts. For the Petitioners : Mr. B. Chakraborty Advocate. For the Respondents : None appears. Date of hearing & Judgment : 19/8/2008. JUDGMENT AND ORDER( ORAL) 1. Heard Mr B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners. No ne appears for the respondents- Railway. 2. On the earlier occasions also there was none representing the re spondents/ Railway. 3. The petitioners (seven in numbers) at the time of filing o f this writ petition were in the grade of Sub-Inspector of RPF. Their grieva nce is against the Annexure ’ L’ Revised and Corrected Provisional Seniority Lis t of Sub-Inspector/RPF as on 01.10.2005 and the consequential promotion effecte d on that basis against the vacancies which arose due to restructuring of the ca dre. Be it stated herein that next promotion of the petitioners is to the high er grade of Inspector of RPF. 4. The petitioners were selected for appointment as Sub-Inspector ( RPF) in the year 1996 and on successful completion of training etc, they joined their services in the respective Zones of N.F. Railway. The private respondents were also appointed through the same selection process but were appointed in di fferent Railway Zones. It was during the year 1999-2000 the private respondents were transferred to N.F. Railway from different zones on the basis of request ma de by them. 5. Upon a reference to the Annexure ’M’ Circular letter dated 22.5. 96 issued by the Govt of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) , it is th e case of the petitioners that the private respondents upon their transfer from other zones to the N.F. Railway became juniors to the petitioners. In fact , in the seniority list published on 30.6.2000, the petitioners were shown senior to the private respondents. Again in the provisional seniority list published on 30 .9.04, the petitioners were shown senior to the private respondents. In the mean time, restructuring process was initiated by the Railway and vide office memora ndum dated 6.4.04, it was stated that the posts arising out of restructuring wou ld be filled up on the basis of seniority examining individual cases through mod ified selection process instead of normal selection process. 6. When the matter rested thus, some promotions to the rank of S.I. of RPF were affected, making a grievance against which the petitioners filed W P(C) No. 5859/05 wherein the orders of promotion were kept in abeyance. When th e matter rested thus, the respondents issued Annexure ’K’ series revised the sen iority list as on 27.8.05 followed by the impugned Annexure ’L’ corrected provi sional seniority list assigning higher seniority position to the private respond ents over the petitioners. 7. It is the grievance of the petitioners that such changes of seni ority position was brought adversely affecting the service career of the petitio ners without affording them any opportunity of being heard. Further grievance of the petitioners is that the private respondents have been favoured with promoti on to the next higher grade of S.I. RPF on the basis of erroneous seniority posi tion. 8. The respondents in their counter affidavit have taken some evas ive stand and have not dealt with the stand of the petitioners that in view o f Annexure ’M’ Circular letter dated 22.5.96 the private respondents are not ent itled to get seniority over the petitioners upon joining the N.F. Railway on the ir request transfer. They have referred to Annexure -II letter dated 14.11.05 conveying the decision of the Railway Board that the seniority of all the 42nd Batch SIs should be uniformly reckoned w.e.f 16.1.97. Be it stated herein that the petitioners and the private respondents belong to 42nd Batch SIs. From th e stand of the respondents it is not discernable as to on what ground a deviati on was made from the earlier seniority position erring benefits to the privat e respondents. 9. Law is well settled that any decision and/ or revised policy, un less made operative retrospectively cannot operate retrospectively. In the coun ter affidavit the respondents have repeatedly mentioned about Railway Board’s C ircular dated 15.9.04 pertaining to restructuring, however , have not mentioned about the basis on which the seniority position of the petitioners vis-à-vis th e private respondents has been redetermined. 10. In Para 18 of the counter affidavit the following statements hav e been made: It is stated that the selections are made as per principles and guidelines of Railway Board’s Circular dated 15.09.2004 as already reiterated above in differe nt paras. It may be noted that the seniority of the persons are based on the scr utiny of the service records and confidential reports of the staff as provided i n para 3 of the aforesaid office memorandum/circular dated 15.9.2004 which is ob ligatory under the Rule in the case of existing classification and filing up of the vacancies in any view of the matter by apprehending the actions of the Respo ndent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Further, it is submitted that the instructions of the Rai lway Board are strictly adhered to in the case of promotion of the 15 Nos. of SI PFs to IPF against creation of 15 Nos . of posts of IPF due to restructuring . 11. Above statements of the respondents do not lead us anywhere . As noted above, it is discernable from the counter affidavit as to what exactly is the stand of the respondents and on what basis the seniority position has b een altered. 12. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the official respondents to deal with the matter appropriately taking into acco unt all the relevant facts and circumstances and then to pass a speaking order. While deciding the issue, they will bear in mind the stand of the petitioners as reflected in the writ petition. 13. The entire exercise shall be carried out as expeditiously as pos sible but at any rate not later than 31st October, 2008. The decision to be a rrived at by passing a speaking order shall be communicated to the petitioners . The petitioners may obtain a certified copy of this judgment and order and prod uce the same before the respondents for their necessary follow up action.