1 OA.No.170/00504-00511/2018/CAT/Bangalore Bench CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00504-00511/2018 DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JULY, 2019 HON’BLE DR.K.B.SURESH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE SHRI C.V.SANKAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. Ravi N S/o. Sri.R.Narayana aged about 34 years Working as Technician Grade-II Office of CDO South Western Railway Mysore Division Mysore. 2. Venkataramanan T S/o. Sri Thangamani aged about 33 years Working as Technician Grade-II Office of CDO South Western Railway Mysore Division Mysore. 3. Manjunath T S/o Sri.Thimaiah aged about 32 years Working as Technician Grade-I Office of CDO South Western Railway Mysore Division Mysore. 4. Natraj B S/o. Sri.Basvanna aged about 35 years Working as Technician Grade-I Office of CDO South Western Railway Mysore Division Mysore. 2 OA.No.170/00504-00511/2018/CAT/Bangalore Bench 5. Suresh M S/o.Sri Munniswamy aged about 34 years Working as Technician Grade-I Office of CDO South Western Railway Mysore Division Mysore. 6. Mohan Kumar G S/o Sri.Govinda R aged about 34 eyars Working as Technician Grade-I Office of CDO South Western Railway Mysore Division Mysore. 7. Sunil Kumar C S/o Sri R.Chandrasekhar aged about 35 years Working as Technician Grade-II Office of CDO South Western Railway Mysore Division Mysore. 8. Vijay Kumar S S/o. Sri Sidde Gowda R aged about 34 eyars Working as Technician Grade-II Office of CDO South Western Railway Mysore Division Mysore. ….Applicants (By Advocate Sri Izzhar Ahmed) Vs. 1. Divisional Personnel Officer-II (Personnel Department) South Western Railway Mysore Division Mysore. 2. Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Mechanical Department) South Western Railway Mysore Division 2. Mysore. 3 OA.No.170/00504-00511/2018/CAT/Bangalore Bench 3. 3. Union of India through the General Manager South Western Railway Gadag Road Hubli: 20. ….Respondents (By Advocate Sri N.Amaresh) O R D E R (PER HON’BLE SHRI C.V.SANKAR, MEMBER (ADMN) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The applicants were appointed under the Apprentice Act to the post of 'Substitute Khalasi as group-D post in pay of Rs.2550/- w.e.f. 4.12.2006 in the Mechanical Department vide office order dtd.6.12.2006(Annexure-A1). Vide office orders dtd.11.6.2007(Annexure-A2) & 6.7.2007(Annexure-A3), the 1st respondent granted temporary status to the applicants after completion of 4 months and 120 days continuous service with the approval of the competent authority. The 1 st respondent issued memorandum dtd.11.2.2008(Annexure-A4) regarding empanelment for absorption for the post of Khalasi in pay of Rs.2550/- in scale of Rs.2550-3200 as on 30.6.2007 after granting the temporary status. Thereafter the 1 st respondent prepared seniority list of Technician in Mechanical Department dtd.1.12.2012(Annexure-A5) and entered two dates in the column of date of appointment in Railway service as (a) the date of initial appointment as substitute Khalasi and (b) the date of regularisation which is against the prescribed rule and even not permissible for two dates in the seniority list as date of appointment. The applicants filed representation dtd.13.11.2017(Annexure-A6) requesting to grant the date of appointment as the date of temporary status in terms of the orders in OA.No.14/2011 and the WP.No.5743/2012. But the 1st respondent rejected their claim vide order dtd.4.4.2018(Annexure-A7) stating that the Courts' orders are 4 OA.No.170/00504-00511/2018/CAT/Bangalore Bench applicable only to the parties in litigations and not applicable to the applicants seeking similar relief. The 1st respondent who is the cadre controlling authority has not taken approval of the 2nd respondent while rejecting the case of the applicants as the 2nd respondent is only the competent authority to pass any order. 2. The applicants submit that in OA.No.14/2011 the applicants therein were appointed to the post of Substitute Khalasi in Mechanical Department under the 2 nd respondent and the 1st respondent was cadre controlling officer and he granted temporary status to the applicants vide office order dtd.25.10.2005(Annexure-A8) and thereafter their service was regularised. Thus the respondents have not considered the date of appointment as the date of Temporary status in terms of Rule 6 of Master Circular-20(Annexure-A9). Aggrieved by the same, the applicants had filed OA.No.14/2011 and the same was allowed on 9.9.2011(Annexure-A10) which was challenged by the respondents in WP.No.5743/2012 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which dismissed the Writ Petition vide order dtd.17.10.2012(Annexure-A11) whereby the order in OA.No.14/2011 has attained finality. Thereafter the respondents vide order dtd.2.7.2013(Annexure-A12) have complied with the order by correcting the service records and the seniority of the applicants in OA.No.14/2011 considering the date of appointment as the date of temporary status. The 1st applicant submits that in his service records(Annexure- A13), the column of 'date of appointment' is left blank and there is no entry in the same. The respondents are bound to enter the date of appointment as the date of temporary status in the service book and the consequential entries. The compliance report dtd.2.7.2013 was approved by the Chief Personnel Officer, SW Rly., but the 3rd respondent has not exercised powers delegated in Rule 123 of IREC, I-1985 to frame rules for group-D & C and the 1st respondent has violated Article 14 and 309 5 OA.No.170/00504-00511/2018/CAT/Bangalore Bench of the Constitution of India and also violated Rule 6 of Master Circular-20 deliberately considering that the order in OA.14/2011 is in personam instead of in rem. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the applicants have filed the present OA seeking the following relief: a. Set aside the impugned letter No.Y/P.612/IV/C&W/Court cases dtd.4.4.2018(Annexure:07) as illegal without following Rule 6 of Master Circular-20 for date of appointment as the date of temporary status as settled by the Hon'ble Courts. b. Direct the respondents to consider the representation of the applicants dtd.13.11.2017(Annexure-A6) and enter the date of appointment as the date of temporary status in the service book and consequential service records in terms of Rule 6 of Master Circular-20 (Annexure-A9) following the orders dtd.9.9.2011 in OA.No.14/2011(Annexure-A10), dtd.17.10.2012 in WP.5743/2012(Annexure-A11) and the compliance order dtd.2.7.2013(Annexure-A12) with all consequential promotional benefits to the higher grade with arrears the consequential benefits. c. Grant relief or reliefs as deemed fit and proper, with costs, in the interest of justice and equity. 3. On the other hand, the respondents in their reply statement have submitted that the present OA is not filed within the prescribed period of limitation and is badly delayed by a period of more than 10 years whereby barred by limitation and hence is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 4. They submit that the applicants on completion of Apprentice Act were engaged as Substitute Khalasi in Group-D category of Mechanical Department/C&W wings w.e.f. 4.12.2006 and on completion of 4 months/120 days continuous service, they were granted temporary status and were absorbed against existing vacancies of Khalasis in Mechanical Department, Mysuru Division of SW Railway as on 30.6.2007 and were promoted from time to time. The applicants' seniority lists were also issued from time to time duly giving opportunity for representations, if any. They have never protested either their seniority or their promotion till filing their 6 OA.No.170/00504-00511/2018/CAT/Bangalore Bench representation dtd.13.11.2017 and filing of the present OA. As per para-321 of IREM Volume-I 1989(Annexure-R1), 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. The applicants had not challenged/questioned on the seniority list at that point of time and accepted the same without any protest and they have accepted their subsequent promotion as Tech-II also and now after expiry of more than 5 1/2 years, questioning the same is absolutely an afterthought and it is not correct for the applicants to unsettle the seniority list which has already been settled years ago and should not be allowed to be reopened. The respondents have followed the rules regarding fixation of seniority laid down in para 303(b) of IREM Vol.I(Annexure-R2) and the same has been confirmed by the Tribunal in OA.880/2014 vide order dtd.20.4.2015(Annexure-R3). As per para 15.1 of Master Circular 34(Annexure-R4), the date of appointment of a substitute to be recorded in the Service Book against the column 'Date of Appointment' should be the date on which he/she attains temporary status after a continuous service of four months if the same is followed by his/her regular absorption.