ORDER
P. Lakshmana Reddy, J. (Vice Chairman)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The grievance of the applicant is that his juniors have been shown as seniors in the seniority list of Khalasis. Therefore, he filed this application seeking the following relief:
to call for the records pertaining to this OA declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not considering the representation of the applicant dated 30.01.2003 for rectification of seniority discrepancy as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, and also violation of Articles 14, 15, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the letter No. CP/676/IV/S&T/Kh.Helper, dt. 16.7.2003 of the 1st respondent directing the respondents to rectify the seniority discrepancy of the applicant and give seniority effecting from 1.1.1983/1984.
3. The relevant facts in brief as follows:
As per the averments of the application, the applicant was appointed as casual labour with effect from 03.07.1978 and worked under DSTE/C/W/S.C. as Khalasi. He was absorbed as Khalasi after screening on 06.05.1985 and posted at Weerur (WIRR) under CSI/SKZR and a revised panel has been approved by the competent authority. Some of his juniors who have worked less working days than him have been absorbed with effect from 01.01.1983 and 01.01.1984 but the applicant was absorbed with effect from 06.05.1985. The same was brought to the notice of the respondents several times requesting for rectification of the said discrepancy. Finally, a written representation was made on 30.01.2003 requesting the respondents to issue favourable orders for necessary alteration. But the 1st respondent refused for rectification of the seniority discrepancy vide letter dated 16.07.2003. Hence, the applicant had to approach this Tribunal.
4. The respondents have contested this application and filed counter reply stating that the OA is barred by laches and limitation as the applicant is claiming a relief of revision of seniority fixed during the year 1985 for which no detailed records are available at this distant time. The applicant was appointed as casual labour on 03.07.1978 under Divisional Signal Telecommunication Engineer /Construction/Secunderabad and he was screened for absorption and a list of 51 was published including that of the applicant. After interpolating seniority of casual labour of Microwave/Construction/Secunderabad, Dy. Chief Signal and Telecommunication Engineer/Survey/Secunderabad a list of 67 casual labourers was published on 28.11.1985 in the order of their seniority for absorption in the S & T department. The applicant’s name is shown at S. No. 15 in the said seniority list correctly. It is further pleaded that the contention of the applicant that some of his juniors were empannelled with effect from 1.1.83 and 1.1.84 is vague and untenable and he has not stated who are such juniors and when screening was held and absorption orders were issued by publishing a panel, the date of regular absorption into a post and the order of the panel can only be the governing factors for determining seniority. Para 302 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume I governs the fixation of seniority. Hence, giving of a date of regular absorption prior to the order of absorption is inconceivable and the allegation is not correct. The contention of the applicant that he brought it to the notice of respondents several times is not correct. The applicant made his first representation dated 30.01.2003 and he was duly replied. It is further pleaded that the seniority list of Khalasis dated 31.07.90 was published. Later the applicant was promoted as Khalasi Helper on 28.10.92. A seniority list of Khalasi Helpers was published on 30.10.96 showing the applicant’s name at 361. The applicant was further promoted to Electrical Signal Maintainer Skilled III vide order dated 12.03.2003. The applicant has not raised any grievance against any of these seniority lists and promotions and sought to unsettle the settled position of the seniority by making the representation dated 30.01.2003 after about two decades which is untenable in law and jeopardise the rights of several employees. Hence, the respondents pleaded for dismissal of this OA.
5. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the applicant reiterated the contentions raised in the application. Similarly, learned standing counsel for the respondents also reiterated the contentions raised in the reply. The point that arises for consideration in this application is whether the applicant is entitled to revise the seniority list of Khalasi, Khalasi Helpers, etc. and to what result?
6. The facts are not very much in dispute. Admittedly, the applicant was awarded temporary status as Khalasi with effect from 06.05.85 whereas the 11 members mentioned in Annexure III over whom the applicant is claiming seniority were given temporary status with effect from 01.01.1983 and 01.01.1984 that is prior to the absorption of the applicant. Seniority list will be prepared only after Khalasis are conferred temporary status. But the learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant ought to have been absorbed earlier than those 11 persons as he has served as casual labour since the year 1978 whereas those 11 persons were engaged as casual labour in the years 1979, 1980 & 1981 as is evident from the information given in Annexure III. It is true that as seen from the Annexure III those 11 persons were engaged as casual labour in the year 1979, 1980 & 1981 whereas the applicant was engaged in the year 1978 as per the information given in Annexure II. But, admittedly, the applicant did not agitate the same when he was not conferred temporary status while granting temporary status to those who were engaged as casual labour subsequent to his engagement. We do not know under what circumstances his name was not considered to confer temporary status prior to 06.05.1985. At this point of time after a period of about 20 years it is not possible for this Tribunal to decide whether non-conferment of temporary status to the applicant prior to 06.05.1985 is in accordance with law. However, as seen from the annexures filed by the respondents, as long back as on 30.06.1990, the seniority list of Khalasis was circulated and in that seniority list, the applicant’s name is shown at 859 whereas the names of those 11 persons in Annexure III are shown far seniors to the present applicant. The applicant did not challenge the same within the limitation period. Admittedly, he was promoted in the year 1992 as Khalasi Helper and Khalasi Helpers seniority list was also published in the year 1996 and it was also circulated and in that list also the applicant was shown as much junior to those 11 persons and at that time also the applicant did not raise any objection to the seniority list. For the first time, he submitted a written representation in the year 2003. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that oral representations were made earlier. But such oral representations cannot be taken into consideration. The fact remains that written representation was submitted in the year 2003. As per para 321 of IREM Volume I 1989, if at all any employee is aggrieved by the seniority list circulated to them regarding their seniority position, they shall represent within a period of one year and no case for revision in seniority list should be entertained beyond that period. Here in this case, the applicant did not agitate about his seniority position within the limitation period prescribed therein. Therefore, we entirely agree with the respondents that the OA is barred by limitation and laches. At this point of time, it is not possible to give any direction to the respondents to give temporary status to the applicant with effect from 01.01.1981 and to revise all the seniority lists prepared subsequently. Hence, we find no merit in this application and in our considered view, the application is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, OA is dismissed with no order as to costs.