Saturday, October 15, 2011

OA NO.288/2009 --on 01-04-2011

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.288/2009

THURSDAY, DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2010


HON'BLE SHRI B.VENKATESWARA RAO ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)


K.Anand Naik,
S/o K.Sachidananda Naik,
Aged 45 years, working as
Material Clerk, Office of their
Deputy Chief Materials Manager,
General Stores Depot,
South Western Railway,
Gadag road,
Hubli – 580 020. ...Applicant

(By Advocate Shri A.R.Holla)
Vs.

1. Union of India,
By General Manager,
South Western Railway,
Club Road,
Hubli – 580 023.

2. Chief Personnel Officer,
South Western Railway,
Head Quarter Office,
Lakshmi Complex,
Station Road,
Hubli – 580 020.

3. Controller of Stores,
South Western Railway,
Lakshmi Complex,
Station Road,
Hubli - 580 020

4. Deputy Chief Materials Manager,
General Stores Depot,
South Western Railway,
Gadag Road,
Hubli – 580 020. ...Respondents

(By Advocate Shri N.Amaresh)

O R D E R

HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)

The case arises out of non-promotion of the applicant from the post of
- 2 -
Material Checker to the post of Material Clerk on the date of his completing 5 years of service in the post of Material Checker as per rules.
The case of the applicant in brief is as under:
The applicant was working as Material Checker in South Western Railway and on completion of 5 years of service on 20-3-2005 he should have been given promotion as Material Clerk. Instead he was promoted w.e.f. 30.5.2008. During the intervening period the Railway Board has promoted some Class IV staff to the post of Clerk-cum-Typist which carries the same pay scale as that of Material Clerk.

2. Heard Shri A.R.Holla, learned Counsel for applicant and Shri N.Amaresh, learned Counsel for respondents. The learned Counsel for the applicant argued that according to the Rules the Railway Board, for promoting Group 'D' Staff to the post of Material Clerk following Rules apply:
(i) All the material Checkers who have completed 5 years of service can be promoted automatically as Material Clerk.
(ii) If there still remains vacancy in the post of Material Clerk then the same can be filled up from the Group 'D' staff provided that such Group 'D' staff has to take an examination and if successful, can be promoted as Material Clerk.
(iii) In the event of such an examination taking place, all those Material Checkers who have not completed 5 years but have completed 3 years are also eligible for examination and for competing with the Group 'D' staff for the post of Material Clerk.

3. In view of the above provisions the learned Counsel for the applicant claim that since the applicant has completed 5 years service on 20-3-2005 he should have been given automatic promotion from that date against the post of Clerk-
- 3 -
cum-Typist which had fallen vacant on that date.

4. The learned Counsel for the respondents relied upon a very crucial technical aspect. He pointed out that the vacancies which were available on 20-3-2005 were for the post of Clerk-cum-Typist and not for the post of Material Clerk. As and when the post of Material Clerk fell vacant i.e., on 30.5.2008, the Railway Board , South Central Railway, Secunderabad had given promotion to the applicant as Material Clerk.

5. We specifically asked both the Counsel as to whether the posts of Material Clerk and that of Clerk-cum-Typist were same or different. Both the learned Counsels admitted that even though both the posts carried the same pay scale the job description of Material Clerk and a Clerk-cum-Typist were different, the Railway Board maintained and managed these two cadres separately and keeps separate seniority lists for both. All the Rules quoted by the learned Counsel for the applicant are the Rules of recruitment by promotion to the cadre of Material Clerk but they are not applicable in toto to the promotion of Clerk-cum-Typist. The applicant was given promotion to the post of Material Clerk when a permanent vacancy occurred in that cadre in 2008.

6. In view of the above the application does not stand and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.


(LEENA MEHENDALE) (B.VENKATESWARA RAO)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)

sd.

No comments:

Post a Comment