IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3120 of 2010 1. Union Of India represented through the General Manager, Eastern Railwy, Fiarily Place, 17 Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata – 1 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Malda Division, Malda (W.B.) 3. The Divisional Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Malda Division, Malda (W.B.) 4. The Diviosonal Mechanical Engineer , Eastern Railway, Malda Division, Malda (W.B.) ….. Petitioners Versus 1. Jata Shankar Mishra , son of Lae J.J.Mishra, working as Khalasi Helper under the Loco Foreman / SEE (Loco) Eastern Railway, Jamalpur, Bihar 2. Surendra Yadav, son of Late Chamary Yadav working as Khalasi Helper under the Loco Foreman, Jamalpur, Bihar 3. Sunil Kumar Mandal, Son of Late hridaya Mandal, working as Fitter Khalasi Helper under SEE (Loco), Jamalpur, Bihar …… Respondents ----------- For the Petitioners : M/s D.K.Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Amarnath Jha, Advocate ----- 8 21.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Respondents. This writ petition has been preferred for quashing of judgment and order dated 23.3.2009 passed in O.A. No. 783 /05 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). 2 By the impugned order the learned Tribunal has directed the petitioners, Railway authorities, to consider the promotion of the applicants / respondents at par with their juniors with consequential benefits according to the seniority list or alternatively to create promotional avenue in the Steam Shed for the applicants within a period of four months. The consequential order contained in Annexure M dated 4.8.2009 has already been issued by the Eastern Railway in favour of the applicants / respondents. In 1993 the concerned workmen were working as Khalasi Helper in the Loco Shade, Jamalpur. Due to modernization, Diesel Shade was created separately at Jamalpur and admittedly the applicants - respondents and a number of other employees opted for the Diesel Shed. From Annexure A, it is evident that earlier proposal to hold screening test was done away with and in such circumstances the only rational policy could have been to allow option of the employees to be transferred to Diesel Shed as per seniority. However, that was not done and as appears from Annexure 4 to the writ petition only 35 persons 3 were transferred to the Diesel Shed in June 1993. Out of them it appears that one Surajdeo Sharma and 16 others were not relieved in spite of transfer in their favour. Those who were transferred to the Diesel Shed, although being juniors received certain promotions. Surajdeo Sharma and 16 others aggrieved by denial by such promotion preferred an original application before the Tribunal in 1996, which was allowed in the year 2000. That decision was challenged by the petitioners before this Court through writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 4948 of 2001, which was dismissed on 18.4.2001 vide order contained in Annexure G. Surajdeo Sharma and others were subsequently granted benefit of promotion thereupon the three applicants preferred the present O.A. under consideration before the Tribunal in the year 2005, which has been allowed because the Tribunal did not find any good reason why the Railway authorities did not accept the option of the applicants for being transferred to Diesel Shed. It was rightly found by the Tribunal that the applicants are being made to suffer 4 in the matter of promotion for no fault of their because their juniors have been given promotions only because their options were accepted without any criteria leading to their early promotion. In the facts and circumstances, we find no good reason to interfere in this matter. The writ petition is dismissed. Spd/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)