p V 2/) N Qwwiw §Emh J ii l ‘ ® ’ i f, c if” Baa) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR \ WRIT PETITION No. (W) OF 2007 PETITIONERS (Sl : 1. Union of India, through Secretary Ministry of Railways, Ne Delhi 81 Others General Manage South East Central Raway, Blaspur il l ’\ eneral Manager, Sout Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata—43 K.K. Pathak, S/o M.P.Pathak, Aged about 50 years, working as AT (M), SEC Rl Head Quarte R/o Pathak Bhawa Nea Gara Sam, arapar Biaspu () A. M. Masra S/o Late Mansarrn Masrar aged about 48 year Worng as AOM (C), SEC Rl Nagpur Div R/o Bunglow No.179, SEC Rly. Officers Colony, Bilaspur (C.G.) K.M. Gajbhiya, S/o Late Maniram Gajbhiye, aged 53 years, Working as ADME, SEC Rly. /BSP, R/o Rly. Qr.No. 1514/4, Railway Officers Colony, Bilaspur (C.G.) Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (M.P.) l WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION \__\ OF INDIA SEEKING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI K /, M £3 / w ; r C G ) G h VERSUS M y r n r ujtl aj Tlka lr CG m n s ki y n IGH COURT OF CIHIATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 679/2007 PETITIONERS Union of India and. others Venus Ashok KumuL Nayak and others WHT PETITION (S) No. 684L200? PETITIONERS Union of India and others Venus REPONDENTS K. Srinivas and mom WRIT PETITION (sl No. 685/2007 J PETmoms Union of India and others Versus ~ R E S P o m m s Om Prakash and another WRrr Pmmon (3) No. 1471/2007 Union of India and others Vmuo REPONDENTS K.K. Pathak and othem DB:- HON’BIE m1 Ll. QUDDUSI E HOR’BLE SM! K.K. AGARWAL. JJ Pmm :- Shri P.S..Koshy, Advocate for the peh'tioner. h Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas, Advocate for te respondents. 0 R A L O R D E R ' . (5-8-20 10) These four writ petitions am‘med’ayjnst. the orders dated 2-8-2006, 30-8-2006, 30-8-2006, 30-8-2006 passed W-the Cenu'alAdministrative Tribunal Jabalpur in anbn Applications No. 448/2005,- 7/2006, 9/2006, 25/2006 respectively. Since common question is involved 'in all i ‘o { l H , W thasc writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common brder. ' The orignal applications pled by the employees working in South East oemml Railway (for short sEc Ranwayq- challenged the order dated 13-3 2005 by which theu‘ claim for admmistrative uansfer of then' hen from South Eastern Railway (for short ‘SE Ra11way’) to SEC Rallway:’ was rejected and they were advised to seek transfer on bottbm seniority basis. a efore proceeding further, it is nwessary to g've the relevant dates The SE Railway was split into three new zones, meaning thereby, on trifmcation of SE Railway, p N three new zones were created nmnely SE Railway, East Cost Railway and South East Central Railway with effect from 1-4-2003. At that time, the respondents wexe holding Group—C posts An option was sought n‘om the ’_ respondents for absorption in any of the zones, last date of which was 23-9-2002 for youp B, but as thw did not pass Group-B examination at that time, no one on that date gave any option. They were allowed to appear in the examination for youpj B posts ,oorrducted on 20—12-2002 i.e. much after the last dates-of giving option. 'Consequenhy, they were declared < successful vide order dated 10-3-2003 and Wm: edect hem 27 3 2003 they were given promotions on m3 posts Therefore, a questbn has arisen as to how they could opt for absorption as group-B withoutnqualmring y‘gV-roup:B‘ examination, but whenvthey’were- declared smsful on examination of gimp-B posts, they moved an application for giving their option in South East Central Railway as, they were working in south East Central Railway at that V time. But the same was rejected. Hence, the respondents approached the Tribunal which allowed meir orignal applications for the reasons mentioned in Para 8 and 9 of its judgnent, which are quoted below:- ‘3 '8. ”we ah’cular dated 17-5-2002 (annexure A-S) not$ed LDCE for 13 vacancies Since it was done much before tryurcatwn the notwcauan must have taken mto account the total number of vacanax in undwtded SE railway. However; before panel was declared, ctculw' dated 25-9-2002 (annexure A/21) ~‘was issuedadvtsingthezonalmanagertooperate pcmels accordmg to vacandes available in the residual Jurisdiction of the rdlwwy wter tnjhrcation Thef ts thatthepmelwasdeclmed on 25-3-2003 (annexure A-14) ie. much ¢er the issue of this ciradm‘ and the subsequent-order issued on 27-3-2003 (Annex-are A-15) posted the selected candidates, without taking their option, not any in the jurisdiction of residual SE railway, but also in the jurisdiction of the newly cremd SEC andECrauwayswiththeapprovalofthe ‘Competent Authority’ (as mentioned m the opening sentence ofthe said order), we have no doubt in our_ ” ~ mindthatthiswasdoneinaecordancewiththe guidelines laid down in the circular dated 25-9- 2002 (annexure A/21). 9 1he fact that the applicants were retained withm' the jurisdiction of SEC railway even @er tnjilrcatton clearly shows tfm they were selected in group-B posw, taking vacancies of SEC railway mto account and it will not be legally tenable to ask them to applyfor transferoflien to SEC railway on the basis ofbottom senioruy rule. The rwpondens have stated in their written statement that the options exercised by them as group-C employees have become redundant on account q‘ their I promotion togrcup—Bpast Ithattsso thereb also noposswmy oftheirexerdshgpeshoptionas agroupaB employee, asthedmofarercisingthat 'optlonwasovernmchbMtheywerewpomted ‘ ‘ ,_ 'togmup-Bpost itwauldbenotanlyunfw but alsoiuegaltoaskthemtolosethev seniority,#' ‘they want to contbtue on apermment basis m ~ their existmg position They have become entitled to permanent retention h SEC rdlway and, thereby, 'fwWerq‘MlwnMtheersuvhile£E railway toSECmitway, by’mrtue ofhaving been posted there ¢er they suweededain an LDCE thm was notg'ied much bejbre the trijumian and was hetdfor a spmd number of vacancies worked-v - ‘autfor the undimded $ra¢pw Thea-claimis Mherstmngthenedjhmthemumtthey were V not told m advwwe thw they would'have to lose ‘ their seniority fthey wanted to continue within the ' Junsdmon w the SEC railway, ma abo becmse theywereretamedmSECmmvaywtthouthaving beengwenanomormnttytoaercisethwopm In v1ew of above mentioned facts and circumstances, we do not see any good ground tn mtcrfene in the impmed Judgment and order passed by the Tribunal in exerdse of' the jurisdlction conferred to this Court under Article H 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India. In View of above, the writ petitions axe dimissed. 7. No order as to costs. Sdl- LM. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge