Ms. Shobhawati W/O. Late Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. applicant, who came to be appointed on compassionate grounds on the demise of her husband, who was a railway employee, has filed this application under section 19 of the administrative tribunals act, 1985 seeking to set aside the order dated 18.9.2006 issued by the assistant personnel officer (second respondent herein) vide which her representation seeking change of category of employment from safaiwali to khallasi has been rejected.2. earlier in point of time, the applicant for the same relief i.e.change of category from safaiwali to khallasi filed oa 577/2006 which was disposed of by this tribunal on 8.3.2006. the operative part of the order reads as follows: annexure a-7 shows that applicant has given representation to the sr. dpo, drm's office, new delhi for change of category from safaiwali to khalasi, which has been forwarded for necessary action. since, no final order has been passed thereon as stated by applicant, this oa is disposed of at the admission stage itself without going into the merits of case, by directing the respondents to look into her grievances and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order under intimation to her. you have requested for change of category only on grounds of belonging to 'yadav' caste and that the nature of your job and designation as safaiwali are not available to your caste, resulting in social problem to you. it is to be reminded to you that you have been appointed in railways on 'compassionate grounds' litigate financial handlings due to the death of you spouse, c.g. appointments are also subject to availability of vacancy, fitness, educational qualifications etc. and that finding regular appointment in central govt. of india is a rarity with unemployment on the rise and educated youth who are willing to work being in plenty. appointments are not given on the basis of castes status, as they are prohibited under act 16 of constitution of india, though special provisions exist for sc/st candidates in govt. appointments. it is further clarify that nature of your work is to be restricted to members of specific community/caste but is to be performed by all those who are appointed to the post irrespective of their caste status. change of category is also subject to availability of vacancy, fitness and ones caste status has no relevancy. in view of above, besides non availability of vacancies, for reasons cited in your request is not tenable. you are, however, free to resign from your job, if it does not suit your social status. in view of the position explained above, your request for change of category from safaiwali to khalasi is not agreed to by way of the above explained position. your representation annexed at a-7 with the oa is disposed off. still if you have anything to represent against the above orders, you may represent to this office within 15 days of receipt of this letter.4. learned counsel for the applicant contends that even though the representation of the applicant with regard to the change of category of her service might have been dealt with and there would not be much scope to seek change of category of service by the applicant, however, the respondents have not dealt with the representation with regard to the salary of the applicant. the applicant is not getting salary for quite some time for which too she had made representation but the impugned order would not refer anything with regard to the same.5. we have heard learned counsel representing the applicant on the only question that has mentioned above. the pleadings with regard to the applicant continuously working even at her transferred place are quite confusing. no clear statement has been made in the application that the applicant is continuously working at the place of posting and has yet not been given salary. learned counsel has taken us through representation filed by the applicant with regard to the payment of salary and from there too it is not possible to make out that the applicant might have been working at a particular place and has not been paid salary.6. considering the plight of the applicant and the low post that she is holding, we, by some indulgence, yet order the second respondent herein to deal with the representations of the applicant dated 18.2.2005 and 30.3.2005 (annexure a/10 colly) particularly with regard to the salary and pass the orders thereon in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.7. before we may part with this order, we would like to mention that the learned counsel states that this tribunal, while passing the order dated 8.3.2006, also directed the respondents to deal with the representation of the applicant with regard to her salary. however, during the course of argument, it transpired that the only direction given by the tribunal was to deal with annexure a/7 representation which, in that petition, was only with regard to change of category of service and not with regard to the salary.

Judgment:
1. Applicant, who came to be appointed on compassionate grounds on the demise of her husband, who was a railway employee, has filed this Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to set aside the order dated 18.9.2006 issued by the Assistant Personnel Officer (second respondent herein) vide which her representation seeking change of category of employment from Safaiwali to Khallasi has been rejected.

2. Earlier in point of time, the applicant for the same relief i.e.

change of category from Safaiwali to Khallasi filed OA 577/2006 which was disposed of by this Tribunal on 8.3.2006. The operative part of the order reads as follows: Annexure A-7 shows that applicant has given representation to the Sr. DPO, DRM's Office, New Delhi for change of category from Safaiwali to Khalasi, which has been forwarded for necessary action.

Since, no final order has been passed thereon as stated by applicant, this OA is disposed of at the admission stage itself without going into the merits of case, by directing the respondents to look into her grievances and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order under intimation to her.

You have requested for change of category only on grounds of belonging to 'Yadav' caste and that the nature of your job and designation as Safaiwali are not available to your caste, resulting in social problem to you.

It is to be reminded to you that you have been appointed in railways on 'compassionate grounds' Litigate Financial handlings due to the death of you spouse, C.G. Appointments are also subject to availability of vacancy, Fitness, educational qualifications etc.

and that finding regular appointment in Central Govt. of India is a rarity with unemployment on the rise and educated youth who are willing to work being in plenty.

Appointments are not given on the basis of castes status, as they are prohibited under Act 16 of Constitution of India, though special provisions exist for SC/ST candidates in Govt. appointments.

It is further clarify that nature of your work is to be restricted to members of specific community/caste but is to be performed by all those who are appointed to the post irrespective of their caste status.

Change of category is also subject to availability of vacancy, fitness and ones caste status has no relevancy.

In view of above, besides non availability of vacancies, for reasons cited in your request is not tenable. You are, however, free to resign from your job, if it does not suit your social status.

In view of the position explained above, your request for change of category from Safaiwali to Khalasi is not agreed to by way of the above explained position. Your representation Annexed at A-7 with the OA is disposed off. Still if you have anything to represent against the above orders, you may represent to this office within 15 days of receipt of this letter.

4. Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that even though the representation of the applicant with regard to the change of category of her service might have been dealt with and there would not be much scope to seek change of category of service by the applicant, however, the respondents have not dealt with the representation with regard to the salary of the applicant. The applicant is not getting salary for quite some time for which too she had made representation but the impugned order would not refer anything with regard to the same.

5. We have heard learned Counsel representing the applicant on the only question that has mentioned above. The pleadings with regard to the applicant continuously working even at her transferred place are quite confusing. No clear statement has been made in the application that the applicant is continuously working at the place of posting and has yet not been given salary. Learned Counsel has taken us through representation filed by the applicant with regard to the payment of salary and from there too it is not possible to make out that the applicant might have been working at a particular place and has not been paid salary.

6. Considering the plight of the applicant and the low post that she is holding, we, by some indulgence, yet order the second respondent herein to deal with the representations of the applicant dated 18.2.2005 and 30.3.2005 (Annexure A/10 colly) particularly with regard to the salary and pass the orders thereon in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

7. Before we may part with this order, we would like to mention that the learned Counsel states that this Tribunal, while passing the order dated 8.3.2006, also directed the respondents to deal with the representation of the applicant with regard to her salary. However, during the course of argument, it transpired that the only direction given by the Tribunal was to deal with Annexure A/7 representation which, in that petition, was only with regard to change of category of service and not with regard to the salary.