IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 25859 of 2001(C) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- P.SUMANASAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, ERNAKULAM SOUTH. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW ZACHARIAH SRI.KOSHY GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL - CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY , MADRAS. 3. B.D.SRIVASTAVA, INSPETOR OF R.P.F. NORTHERN RAILWAY, EXECUTED THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL OF R.P.F. NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC,RAILWAYS THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.25859/2001 ORDER ON CMP. NO.42039/2001 IN OP. NO.25859/2001 DISMISSED 25.01.2008 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 27.6.2000 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.VXP/524/FIXATION/PP OF DSC/O/TVC DT. 3.2.2003. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.2006/SEC(E)/PM-1/1 DT. 16.2.06. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER AS PP GR-II, DT. 13.6.89. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE PETITIONER WAS PROMOTED TO PP/RE-I VIDE O.O. NO.8/2003 OF DSC/RPF/TVC DT. 19.3.03. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FOR THE REDRESSAL OF GRIEVANCES ON 5.4.06. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR PROMOTION TO GR.I PP DT. 8.12.05. E.XT.P8:- COPY OF THE SAID OFFICE ORDER DT. 1.12.05. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================= O.P. No. 25859 of 2001-C. ========================= Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court highly aggrieved by the denial of his due promotion and as regards the non inclusion of his name in the All India seniority list of Grade I Inspectors published as on 29.6.1999. The petitioner was appointed as Public Prosecutor Grade II under the Railway Protection Force in Thiruvananthapuram Division of Southern Railway with effect from 14.6.1989. Ext.P4 is the order of appointment. The petitioner has got a case that this appointment was made on all India basis and he is expected to serve anywhere in India. After completion of 12 years of service he is still treated as Public Prosecutor Grade II (at the time of filing of this writ petition). The genesis of the dispute in this matter is concerning the All India Combined Seniority list of Grade I Railway Protection Force Inspectors which was published as on 29.6.1999 wherein 47 Inspectors who are juniors to the petitioner were included but the petitioner's name was not included. The petitioner has got a case that with effect O.P. No. 25859 of 2001-C. 2 from 1.1.1996 when the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission was implemented the posts of Grade II Inspectors were abolished and only Inspectors' cadre remains. The petitioner therefore contends that there cannot be any categorisation of Public Prosecutor/Inspector Grade II since the provisions of the Act or Rules do not contain any such categorisation. Attention is sought to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. (Section 19 of the Railway Protection Act, 1957 and the Rules 16, 17 and 18) 2. It is in these circumstances the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging his omission from the Combined Seniority List and for a direction to include his name above the name of the 3rd respondent who is Sl.No.288 in the combined seniority list. Consequential benefits have also been sought for. 3. In the reply-affidavit the petitioner has stated further details as regards his seniority position and the manner in which his juniors were placed above him. According to the petitioner, the duties of Grade I and II Prosecutors are one and the same and both are performing the duties of an Assistant Public Prosecutor and are in the rank of Inspector in RPF. Similar is the case of Grade I and II O.P. No. 25859 of 2001-C. 3 Inspectors in the Executive branch. By relying upon the relevant provisions of the Railway Protection Force Rules, Rule 16.3 and 16.4 it is contended that Force deployed on each Zonal Railway shall consist of Executive Branch, Prosecution Branch and Fire Service Branch. Rule 16(2) is particularly relied upon in support of the above contention. The petitioner disputes the coming into existence of the seniority list as stated in para.3 of the counter-affidavit. According to the petitioner only a seniority list of Gr.II Inspectors dated 20.3.2006 was published wherein his position is No.308. Be that as it may, he was promoted as Public Prosecutor Gr.I as per Ext.P5 dated 19.3.2003. In fact, according to the petitioner, going by his seniority and the post to which he is appointed, the promotion granted to him is only a belated one. Under these circumstances, he filed Ext.P6 representation before the Director General, Railway Protection Force through proper channel seeking restoration of his seniority and due position in the promoted post. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents the stand taken is that the seniority list of Inspectors Grade II is maintained in Zonal Railways on the basis of their dates of entry into O.P. No. 25859 of 2001-C. 4 that cadre, whereas the seniority in Inspector Grade I is maintained on All India basis. It is stated that the names of the Inspector of Prosecution Branch are interpolated in the seniority list of Executive Branch as per the date of regular promotion as Inspector/IPF (Gr.I) and the combined seniority list is prepared for their further promotion to the rank of ASC under Railway Protection Force (Group A posts of Deputy Inspector General) etc. It is further stated that the petitioner is a Grade II Public Prosecutor and hence his name cannot find a place in the Inspectors Grade I seniority list drawn upto 4.12.1997. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that as far as Grade II Public Prosecutors are concerned, their appointments are on Zonal basis and accordingly the seniority is fixed in the respective Zones. 5. Rule 16 of the Railway Protection Force Rules states about the three branches, namely, Executive branch, Prosecution branch and Fire Service branch and Rule 16(3) is particularly relied upon to contend that there should be a separate cadre in each such branch for the purpose of fixation of seniority. The Prosecution branch is specifically mentioned under Rule 18 whereby, the prosecution branch on each zonal railway shall have a separate cadre of Inspectors and O.P. No. 25859 of 2001-C. 5 Sub-Inspectors who are appointed as Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors, respectively. Sub-rule 1(e) of Rule 27 provides for compiling on an all-India basis, a seniority list of all inspectors and superior officers and maintain it up-to-date which is included as one among the administrative powers of the Director-General. 6. The issue therefore arises for decision is whether the contention of the petitioner that there is only one cadre of Inspector is correct or not. This is a matter to be decided by the competent authority among the respondents in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. The petitioner has got a further case that even if it is contended that his appointment was only on Zonal basis, even then he was eligible for promotion in the year 1996 as Public Prosecutor Gr.I on the retirement of one Natarajan and therefore the delay on the part of the competent authority in granting him promotion at the relevant time has resulted in hardship to him. In any view of the matter this is an issue which requires deep consideration by the authorities concerned. Therefore, the first respondent is hereby directed to consider and pass orders on Exts.P1, P6 and P7 with notice to petitioner and to any other affected party, and after affording an O.P. No. 25859 of 2001-C. 6 opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other affected parties within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The first respondent shall consider the matter in the light of the provisions of the Act and the Rules which are relied upon by the petitioner as noted above. Along with certified copy of the judgment the petitioner may produce copies of Exts.P1, P6 and P7 or any other relevant documents he wishes to rely upon before the first respondent. There will be a further direction to the Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Southern Railway to offer his remarks on the statements contained in Ext.P7 representation to the first respondent to enable the first respondent to consider the claims raised by the petitioner. Action in that regard shall be taken by him within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner along with Exts.P1, P6 and P7. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-