The case is related to the interpretation
of some of the paras of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, 1989 namely paras
180, 189 and 320. It pertains to the preparation of seniority lists and
promotion of railway employees from one group to another and from one grade to
another within the group. Railway services and in any other Government of India
services, have been mainly classified in four groups A, B, C & D. The
instant case is concerned with services included in different grades in groups
C and D. In each group, there are different grades and the employees working in
the lowest grade in one group get promotion to the higher grade within the group.
When an employee is in the highest grade in a group, he would get promotion to
the higher group and the promotion is given on different criteria. The persons
working in a particular grade would be having same pay scale, might be working
in different departments or different branches with different qualifications
and different nature of work. For the purpose of service conditions and for the
purpose of higher promotion, persons belonging to one grade are treated
equally.
In the instant case, all 3
respondents were initially working in group D. Out of this, respondent nos.2
and 3 were promoted to a higher post of Pointsman ‘B’ in group C, whereas
respondent no.1, who was having the longest service in group D, had not been promoted
and therefore, he had approached Central Administrative Tribunal with a
grievance that he had been denied benefit of promotion. The Tribunal had directed
that the applicant should be considered for promotion on the basis of his seniority.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the
Tribunal, Union of India approached the High Court of Kerala. Vide judgment
dated 27th November, 2007, the High Court dismissed the Petition filed by the
Union of India and hence the present appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.
It is an admitted fact that so
far as length of service in group D is concerned, respondent no.1 was having
longer service than respondent nos.2 and 3. But the question here is whether a
person working in one grade of a lower group can get promotion on the basis of
his seniority in his group irrespective of the length of service rendered in a
particular grade. For example, a person working in the lowest grade i.e. in grade
IV would get promotion to grade III, then to grade II and then to grade I.
After he has been placed in grade I of group D, he would get promotion to the
lowest grade in group C, which is a higher group.
In this case, Respondent no.1 was
having longer service in group D but was in a lower grade than respondent nos.2
and 3 in group D service. That is why he was not promoted to a group C post. To
be able to get promoted to a post in group C, one must be in the highest grade
of group C and admittedly respondent no.1 was not in the highest grade of group
C and being in a lower grade than respondent nos.2 and 3, respondent no.1 could
not have been promoted along with respondent nos.2 and 3.
Hence the Supreme Court opined
that the Tribunal as well as the High Court committed an error while coming to
the conclusion that simply because respondent no.1 had a longer service in
group D, he should also have been promoted along with respondent nos.2 and 3,
who were working in a higher grade in group D.
Therefore, Supreme Court set
aside the impugned judgment of the High Court affirming the order of the
Tribunal. The Court also directed that according to the provisions of the above
stated paras contained in the Manual, the appellants i.e., the Union of
India/Railway should prepare different seniority lists for employees working in
different grades.
The direction of the Court to the
Union of India to prepare different seniority lists for employees working in
different grades indicates that the absence of such system created the whole
confusion and such a long litigation from Tribunal, High Court, and then to the
Supreme court.
(Reference:- SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA CIVIL APPEAL NO.2532 OF 2010 Union of India & Ors. ... Appellants V/s
V.K. Krishnan & Ors. ... Respondents, Judgement dated, FEBRUARY 17, 2015.)
No comments:
New comments are not allowed.