ORDER
M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J)
1. Two applicants had jointly filed this application. The first applicant is working under the Section Engineer (P.Way) at Rohtak and the second applicant is a Head Clerk in the same office.
2. The cause of action for them had arisen consequent to formation of the new Railway Zones and reorganization resulting therefrom. The application is filed so as to agitate over their claims for appropriate orders whereby they had been making requests for being absorbed in Delhi Division. It may not be necessary on the facts of this case to go to the details, since we find that the applicants had earlier filed applications being O.A. Nos. 587/2006 and 591/2006 and by separate orders on 9.3.2006, the applications were disposed of by the Court, observing as following:
Since grievance of applicant in this case is that neither his option has even been considered by respondents nor they have passed any order till date on his request. This O.A. is disposed of at the admission stage itself without going into the merits of the case by directing respondents to consider his request and to treat this O.A. as a supplementary representation of the applicant and to pass appropriate order thereon within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to applicant.
3. Mr. Naval Kishore Jha, learned Counsel for the applicants submits that his clients had been subjected to undue harassment and it would have been possible to haul up the respondents even for contempt of court, as the orders of the Tribunal have practically been ignored. Purporting to obey the orders passed, the Divisional Railway Manager had passed orders on 09.8.2006 and 20.6.2006, respectively, whereby the applicants had been advised that their claims have been rejected. Accordingly, the order dated 20.6.2006 has been made available as Annexure A-I to the application. There is only a reference to the other order passed in the case of the first applicant, which also is stated to be identical.
4. Although detailed counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents and there is attempt to justify the action, nothing is gatherable from these materials, which pin points the reason why the claims of applicants have been found as not acceptable or worthy of being taken cognizance of. Initially, it may be true that options had been called for on 10.3.2003, and the applicants are definite in their submissions that they had opted for postings in the Delhi Division and they further submitted that when all their colleagues had been accommodated so at some point of time, their claims remain to be considered. It is also further submitted that taking notice of the hardship that was there on a few persons, opportunity for a fresh option had been given on 25.2.2005 by the orders of the competent authority. This indeed is crucial. This was in terms of GM (P), Northern Railways letter No. 9391/OptionTransfer/HQ dated 3.1.2005. Fresh options were decided to be called, who had gone over as employees of Bikaner Division on the basis of ‘as is where is’. Vide DREM, Bikaner letter No. P-14-939E/Option/DEE-RE dated 25.2.2005, options had been called from the staff and they were forwarded to the competent authority. The applicants had submitted options at this time as well but they were rejected, by single line orders.
5. This was the subject matter of challenge in the applications referred to earlier and at the time of admission itself, the matter had been remitted for a fresh consideration. This has resulted in the impugned order Annexure A-1. The whole text of the order could be extracted hereinbelow:
Hon’ble Tribunal New Delhi vide its order dated 9.3.2006 in OA No. 591/06 has directed as under:
Since grievance of applicant in this case is that neither his option has even been considered by respondents nor they have passed any order till date on his request. This OA is disposed of at the admission stage itself without going into the merit of the case by directing respondents to consider his request and to treat his OA as a supplementary representation of the applicant and to pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to applicant
In compliance to Hon’ble Tribunal directions as above your case for retention in Delhi Division of N. Rly. as per option has been considered by the competent authority and the same has been regretted by the competent authority.
This is for your information please.
The major paragraph of the order is a quotation from the order passed by the Tribunal. The operative portion does not disclose any application of mind but only a laconic regret is passed on. We do not think that this is an appropriate method to dispose of the grievances of a person, who is at the doors of the administration. The competent authority had found that there was a requirement of inviting fresh options, and the reason for conferring this benefit or the benefit itself have been totally denied to the applicants. It is not possible to gather the exact reasons why representation cannot be considered. The respondents have kept back any attendant details. Even though the administrative authority is not expected to pass a reasoned order at all times when it affects persons, the order at least should disclose as to application of mind and should show that there was no arbitrariness. This duty stood redoubled when the matter was remitted back with a direction to reconsider the issue. Scant regard, according to the applicants, is per se evidenced and we have to note it. We also could not find any justifiable reasons, for rejecting the claims in spite of the presence of two counter affidavits from the respondents. Annexure A-3 further indicates that the G.M. from Headquarters on 29.4.2005 had enquired the fate of the applicants, and the attached list contains name of the applicants as items 25 and 26.
6. Therefore, in the circumstances, we set aside the Annexure A-1 order and the order passed rejecting the claims of the first applicant as well dated 9.8.2006 which are stated to have been in close lines with above. We direct that, as has been ordered in O.As 587/2006 and 591/2006, consideration of the claims of the applicants for transfer to Delhi Division is to be made by the appropriate respondents concerned. The applicants are to be given notice of the hearing and their grievances have to be noted. The authority also should take notice of the circumstances in which fresh options had been invited in respect of similarly situated persons and also to consider the claims, in consonance with the principles, which were adopted when the claims of their colleagues for a posting in the Delhi Division had been granted. We direct that appropriate orders will be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
7. Taking notice of callous manner, in which the applications had been disposed of, we direct that the applicants are to be paid cost of Rs. 1000/- each.