Full Judgment
ORAL ORDER:
{As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.Lakshmana Reddy, Vice Chairman }
Heard Mr.S.Ramakrishna Rao, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.M.C.Jacob, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The applicant filed this application to call for the records pertaining to the appointments of the applicant as CandW Khalasi in the scale of Rs.196-232 under the Chief Train Examiner, Guntur vide order dated 26.04.1977 of Divisional Personnel Officer, S.C.Railway, Vijayawada and as Khalasi in Wagon Work Shop, SC Railway, Guntupalli under 25% quota of ITI qualified candidates vide order dated 10.04.1981 of the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Wagon Work Shop, SC Railway, Guntupalli and to declare the inaction of the 4th respondent to count the total service rendered by the applicant in both the spells as continuous service counting the total seniority from 28.04.1977 including the service rendered in Guntupalli Workshop w.e.f. 10.04.1981 and to consider further promotions on that basis as arbitrary, illegal, unwarranted, misconceived and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. He also sought to set aside the impugned orders dated 13.06.2006 passed by the 4th respondent showing the applicant as junior to the 5th respondent taking the date of appointment in the Wagon Work Shop, Guntupalli w.e.f. 24.04.1981 while showing the date of initial appointment also as 28.04.1977 but without counting the service from 28.04.1977 and also to set aside the impugned orders dated 07.07.2006 rejecting the claim of the applicant to alter his seniority. He sought for further direction to the respondents to refix the seniority of the applicant taking his original date of appointment in the open line CandW Depot at Guntur w.e.f. 28.04.1977 as continuous service.
3. The case of the applicant is that he was originally appointed as khalasi on 26.04.1977 in the Divisional Personnel Office, Personnel Branch, Vijayawada and he joined in the said service on 28.04.1977. While he was so working there, due to the requirement of the staff at Wagon Workshop Unit at Guntupalli, volunteers were called for from all the divisions to recruit /absorb in the Wagon Workshop and the applicant was directed to attend interview on 23.01.1981 and he was selected for the post of Khalasi in the Wagon Workshop, Guntupalli against 25% quota of ITI passed candidates and thereafter he was transferred to Wagon Workshop on 20.04.1981 as he was selected under 25% quota. But the grievance of the applicant is that his seniority is to be fixed taking the date of entry into service as 28.04.1977 and not as 20.04.1981.
4. The respondents contested the application and filed the reply stating that the applicant was selected along with 161 employees as Khalasis against 25% direct recruit quota reserved for ITI passed candidates working in some other units and all those persons were given seniority taking their date of entry into service as 20.04.1981 as they are direct recruits. According to the respondents so far as the 5th respondent is concerned he came to the unit not as a direct recruit but by way of option circulated to the serving employees to cope up man power requirement for the workshop with a condition that those opted would be getting their past service in the workshop. Therefore the service of the 5th respondent was taken from the date of his appointment i.e. 31.01.1979 at Rajahmundry. The respondents pleaded that several seniority lists were prepared and circulated during the years 1984, 1986, 1990, 1994, 2003 and 2006 and that in all those seniority lists 5th respondent was shown as senior to the applicant and at no point of time the applicant raised any grievance and the applicant earned 3 or 4 promotions as per those seniority lists and that only in the year 2004 for the first time he submitted a representation stating that in the event of counting service for the purpose of seniority the date of entry at Vijayawada unit is to be taken into consideration. The respondents pleaded that the service rendered by the applicant in the previous unit will be counted towards qualifying service for the purpose of calculating pension and also fixation of his pay as he is a direct recruit against 25% quota selected and appointed in the year 1984. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the contentions raised in the application. He submitted that in the seniority list the date of entry into service was shown as 28.04.1977/24.04.1981 and for all practical purposes they are taking the date of entry as 24.04.1981 and that is illegal. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the contentions raised in the reply. He invited our attention to the various seniority lists referred to in the reply, wherein Sri Ch.Narasimha Rao was shown as senior to the applicant in all seniority lists. He submitted that after a period of more than 25 years of service, the applicant is not entitled to raise grievance regarding the seniority list and therefore the application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.
5. The points that arise for consideration in this application are :
(i)Whether the applicant is entitled to treat his date of entry into service as 28.04.1977 even for the purpose of seniority If so, whether the applicant is to be shown as senior to the 5th respondent ?
(ii)Whether the impugned orders are sustainable in law ?
(iii)To what result ?
Points (i) and (ii) :
It is not disputed that the applicant was originally appointed as Khalasi in the Carriage and Wagon Workshop on 28.04.1977. According to the applicant he came to the new unit Guntupalli Wagon Workshop by way of transfer after calling for options. While according to the respondents the applicant was directly recruited against 25 % quota along with 161 others. The applicant failed to produce any evidence to show that options were called for and he gave his option and that the respondents had assured him that his service will be counted for all purposes. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has produced the appointment letters to show that the applicant was appointed against 25% as direct recruit. In fact in the application the applicant himself stated that he was selected and appointed against 25% quota of direct recruits. Further as seen from Annexure 8 filed along with the application at page-28 as long back as on 24.04.1984 itself the applicant himself stated in his letter to the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer that he was appointed as Khalasi and joined duty on 22.04.1981 vide office order dated 28.04.1981. Further the copies of the seniority lists have been filed along with the reply. As seen from those seniority lists in all those seniority lists the applicant has been shown as a direct recruit against 25% quota, whereas Sri Ch. Narasimha Rao was shown as CL recruit. It is also not disputed that the applicant earned 3 or 4 promotions and that at no point of time he raised dispute regarding the seniority. It is for the first time in the year 2004 the applicant changed his version stating that he came to the Workshop, Guntupalli not by way of direct recruit, but by way of an optee. After a long lapse nearly 23 years the applicant is not entitled to raise such a grievance. Therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of delay and latches also. Even otherwise, as the applicant himself stated in the year 1984 that he was selected and appointed at Guntupalli Workshop only in the year April 1981, we are not inclined to agree with his present version that he was assured that his service at Vijayawada will be counted for all purposes including for the purpose of seniority. As the applicant served the Railways as a permanent employee, his service is required to be counted for the purpose of calculating qualifying service and that is the reason why in the seniority list his date of entry was shown as 28.04.1977/24.04.1981. Merely because the date 28.04.1977/24.04.1981 is also shown in the seniority list cannot be said that the applicant is entitled to treat that date as date of entry into service in Wagon Workshop, Guntupalli for the purpose of his seniority. As he was admittedly selected and appointed against 25% quota of direct recruits in the Wagon Workshop, Guntupalli for the purpose of his seniority his date of entry into Wagon Workshop is to be taken as 24.04.1981 and not as 28.04.1977. Thus, these two points are found against the applicant.
Point No. (iii) :
In view of the above findings of points 1 and 2, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned orders challenging the application.
6. In the result, the OA is dismissed as devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to costs.