IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27125 of 2005(S) --------------------------------------- OA.39/2005 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- K.RAJAGOPALAN, BINDER, WORKS BRANCH, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR), ADV. SRI.T.A.RAJAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI. 2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI. 3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD. 4. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, SASTHA TEMPLE ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN, SC, RAILWAYS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON 24/03/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.27125/2005-S: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1.: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.3. BEARING J/M.11/85/87 DT. 17/11/1987. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G/2/1/71/88 DT. 20/09/1988 OF THE R.3. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.3. BEARING NO. J/2.11/29/91 DT. 15/03/1991. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE OF R.3. BEARING NO.J/2.II/112/94 DT. 14/11/1994. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A. 718/1995 OF THE HONOURABLE CAT, DT. 07/08/1995. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R.3. NO. 2/535/IX/BINDER DTD. 06/10/2004. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.3. DT. 27/10/2004. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.3. DT.D 07/11/2004. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE R.3. TO THE PETITIONER BEARING NO. J/P/535/IX/BINDER DT. 04/01/2005. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CAT DTD. 11/01/2005. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS DT. 20/12/1999. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT DTD. 16/04/2005. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE ADDL. REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS DTD. 06/2005. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.A. NO. 39/2005 OF THE HONOURABLE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH DTD. 29/08/2005. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RAILWAY BOARD NO. PC.V/97/R-II/17 DTD. 24/11/1998. EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE R.2. DTD. 07/04/2005. EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.3. NO. J/2.349/B5 DT. 22/06/1995. EXT.P.18: COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF THE R.3. NO. J/P.612/VIII/ARTIZAN STAFF/SR. DSO/STORES/DTD. 22/04/1994. EXT.P.19: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.2. NO. P (S)671/II/RCT DT. 31/12/90. EXT.P.20: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 27/01/88. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. C.N. Ramachandran Nair & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).NO.27125 of 2005-S - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. Aggrieved by the dismissal of O.A. No.39/2005 filed by the applicant, he has filed this writ petition challenging the said order. The applicant approached the Tribunal with the main prayer by way of seeking a declaration that he is not liable to be reverted from the post of Binder Highly Skilled Grade I to the post of Binder Skilled. 2. The applicant was originally a casual labourer (Khalasi). He was granted temporary status on 11.12.1976 on completion of four months continuous service. On finding that he was medically unfit, he was medically decategorised. Later, he was posted as Peon in the work branch of the Palakkad Division from 19.9.1980. On successful completion of trade test, he was promoted as Binder (Semi-skilled) as per Annexure A1 order. Later, he appeared for the trade test for promotion as Binder (Skilled) and he passed the test. Thereafter, he was promoted as Binder (Skilled) as per order dated 20.9.1988 (Annexure A2). Later on, by Annexure A3, he was promoted as Binder Highly skilled Grade II. By WPC 27125/2005 -2- Annexure A4 dated 14.11.1994, he was further promoted as Binder Highly Skilled Grade I. When steps were taken to revert him to the post of Binder Skilled, he filed O.A. No.718/1995 which was dismissed allowing him to pursue the remedies before the department. The applicant filed appropriate representation and while that was pending, as per Annexure A6 order a modified fixation was made revising his pay with effect from 1.1.1996. This was challenged in O.A. No.1507/1997 wherein the Tribunal directed the second respondent to look into the matter as per Annexure A8 order. Later on, Annexure A9 order was passed and he was allowed a fresh fixation as per Annexure A10. Further actions were taken against him for reverting him to the lower scale with effect from 1.6.1995 as per show cause notice, Annexure A11. Rejecting his representation, Annexure A13 order was passed which was challenged by him in O.A. No.111/2002. In fact, as per Annexure A13, the fixation made in Annexure A11 was confirmed. The Tribunal allowed the O.A. quashing Annexure A13 and directed the respondents to pay the applicant the consequential arrears with interest at 6% per annum and accordingly as per Annexure A15, his pay has been refixed and the arrears were paid. By a show cause notice dated 6.10.2004, again he was sought to be reverted to the post of Binder Skilled in the scale of Rs.3050-4590. The reasons stated for the reversion are that WPC 27125/2005 -3- the post of Binder in grade Rs.1320-2040 is not authorised by the Pay Commission. After considering his representation, by Annexure A19, the same were rejected. He was ordered to be reverted from the post of Binder Highly Skilled grade I in the scale of Rs.4500-7000 to the post of Binder Skilled in the scale of Rs.3050-4590. This was under challenge in the O.A. 4. The Tribunal considered the question in detail and it was found that the posts to which he was promoted as per Annexures A1 to A3 were on adhoc basis and temporary and he was only asked to officiate in such post. Therefore, he was liable to be reverted once the sanction for the same expired. These were work charged posts. The contention of the petitioner was that in view of the passage of time and as he was allowed to continue in the promoted posts, he is entitled to have been considered as promoted on regular basis. This was not accepted by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the O.A. was dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal is not correct. The petitioner was continuing in the post of Binder which is an artisan post and such posts are only classified as Highly Skilled grade I, Highly Skilled grade II, etc. It is therefore submitted that his long continuance will justify the case pleaded by the petitioner. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the WPC 27125/2005 -4- Tribunal has rightly found against the claim raised by the petitioner. Relying upon the averments in the reply statement, it was contended that all the three promotions, viz. Binder Grade III, Binder Grade II and Binder Grade I were purely on adhoc basis and temporary against work charged posts. Therefore, he was liable to be reverted at the end of the specified period. 7. We may notice that Ext.P1 order was passed when he was promoted as Binder (Semi-skilled), and in the note therein it is made clear that after the initial period of six months his continuance in the grade will be subject to review. In Ext.P2, it is clearly stated in Note 1 that the promotion ordered is purely temporary and he will be reverted back as and when the sanction for work charged post expires. The same note is there in Exts.P3 and P4 also. In the earlier O.A., viz. O.A. No.718/1995 which is produced as Ext.P5, the Tribunal noticed the contention of the respondents that Annexure A4 order itself shows that the applicant was promoted on adhoc basis against a work charged post. In fact, in the orders passed in the earlier O.As. also there were no declaration as to the nature of the post held by him, and they were concerned only with refixation of pay. They dealt with only procedural aspects. For all these reasons, the Tribunal was of the view that the applicant had no right as such. The view taken by the WPC 27125/2005 -5- Tribunal cannot be said to be incorrect. The Tribunal has discussed the entire issue at the correct perspective. It was found by the Tribunal that the applicant had accepted the post with the conditions attached thereto and therefore he would not be entitled to disown the same to his advantage at a later point of time. Accordingly, it was held that the post to which he was promoted, were ad hoc and temporary nature carrying with them the liability of reversion. On the admitted facts of this case, it is clear that the petitioner was promoted only on ad hoc basis. Hence, his claim was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. We see no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. At any rate, it cannot be said that the order is so perverse, warranting interference in these proceedings. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. (C.N. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ WPC 27125/2005 -6- C.N. Ramachandran Nair & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . No. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 6th February, 2008. WPC 27125/2005 -7-