IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9088 of 2006(S)
1. RAJENDRA BABU S.,S/O.SREEDHARAN,
... Petitioner
2. C.JAYARAMAN, S/O.R.CHELLAPPAN ASAN,
Vs
1. SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.MOHANAN
For Respondent :SMT.A.RAJESWARI, SC, RAILWAYS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :08/04/2009
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
=========================================
W.P.(C).No.9088 of 2006 - S
===============================
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The writ petitioners are the applicants in O.A.NO.403/2005.
Respondents were the respondents in that O.A. The brief facts of
the case are the following: The applicants joined in the operating
wing of the Railways as casual labourers in 1969. Soon
thereafter in 1969 itself, they were granted temporary status.
Still later, they were promoted as porters in 1976. While so,
petitioners submit that they were made to work as clerks in the
commercial department of the Railways. Later, they were posted
as First Class Coach Attendant, which is a post in the commercial
wing, in 1983 and 1988 respectively. The scale of pay for the
post of First Class Coach Attendant was Rs.2650-4000. The said
post’s promotion posts were Ticket Collector (Rs.3050-4590) and
Senior Ticket Collector (Rs.4000-6000). On the basis of their lien
in the post of porter, they were already promoted as Points Man
Grade II/Gate Keeper Gr.II which was in the scale of pay
Rs.2650-4000. It is a post in the operating wing, the promotion
W.P.(C).No.9088 of 2006 – S
2
posts of which were Points Man Gr.I/Gate Keeper Gr.I (Rs.3050-
4590), Shunting Jamedar (Rs.4000-6000) etc. The petitioners
were promoted as Points Man Gr.I on 21.02.2003. They
relinguished their promotion for one year so that they could
continue as First Class Coach Attendant. Though their
relinguishment was accepted, later they were posted as Points
Man Gr.II in January, 2004. Challenging that order they
approached the CAT by filing O.A.No.216/2004. Though there
was initially stay against the transfer, finally the Tribunal
dismissed the O.A. on 24.6.2004. The petitioners filed W.P.(C).
N0.21654/2004 challenging the said order of the CAT. During
the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents submitted
before this Court that the writ petitioners would soon be
promoted as Points Man Gr.I. In view of the said submission, the
writ petition was closed on 4.8.2004. The petitioners submit that
though they were promoted as Points Man Gr.I on 9.8.2004, still
they were retained as First Class Coach Attendant. While so, as a
result of restructuring introduced by the administration their
promotion to the cadre of Points Man Gr.I was given
retrospective effect from 1.11.2003. While so, they were
W.P.(C).No.9088 of 2006 – S
3
transferred by Annexure 4 order dated 14.02.2005 produced
along with Ext.P2 in the writ petition as Senior Gate Keepers at
Cheppad and Haripad respectively. Challenging that order the
O.A. was filed. The respondents contended that petitioners’ lien
was always in the operating wing. The post of First Class Coach
Attendant is an ex-cadre post. In exigencies of service, though
they were promoted as Points Man Gr.II/Gate Keeper Gr.II, they
were being allowed to work in the ex-cadre post. They have
never been appointed in accordance with law in any post in the
commercial department of the Railways.
2. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal dismissed the
O.A by Ext.P1. Challenging Ext.P1 this writ petition is filed. The
learned counsel for the writ petitioner Sr.P.V.Mohanan submitted
that they have been working in the commercial wing from 1983
and 1988 onwards uninterruptedly and so it should be deemed
that they acquired lien in that wing and therefore they should be
considered for further promotion in the commercial wing.
Therefore, posting of them in operating wing as was done under
Annexure 4 is unsustainable. We find that the above contention
of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners is plainly untenable.
W.P.(C).No.9088 of 2006 – S
4
By some process known to law, they should be first appointed to
a cadre post in the commercial wing, then only they will get a lien
there. Going by the facts disclosed we find that they have not
been so appointed, but they were allowed to work in the post of
First Class Coach Attendant which is an ex-cadre post.
Therefore, we find nothing wrong in the Railways’ posting them
as Gate Keeper Gr.I. It is their substantive post in which they
have a lien and they have to go, subject to the usual norms
regarding transfer, wherever they are posted. So, the challenge
against Ext.P1 is devoid of any merit and accordingly, the writ
petition is dismissed. But we make it clear that the direction
issued by the CAT in paragraph 10 of Ext.P1 will not be affected
by this judgment.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
JUDGE.
M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS,
JUDGE.
bkn/-