An employee already posted as Loco Pilot Passenger (EMU) cannot claim newly created LPP (Loco) posts.

The applicant, working as a Loco Pilot Passenger under Eastern Railway, Sealdah Division, sought consideration for appointment/posting as Loco Pilot Passenger (Loco) instead of Loco Pilot Passenger (EMU/MEMU).

He claimed that, despite being senior and having worked passenger services, the respondents had not invited his option or considered his representations for 25 posts of Loco Pilot Passenger (Loco).

The respondents stated that the post of Loco Pilot Passenger had subsequently been bifurcated into Loco Pilot Passenger (EMU) and Loco Pilot Passenger (Loco) pursuant to the 2016 crew review; the applicant had already completed the requisite training and aptitude test and had been posted as Loco Pilot Passenger (Motorman/EMU) from 02.07.2014.

They further contended that options for the newly created Loco Pilot Passenger (Loco) posts were invited only from eligible Loco Pilot (Goods) personnel, and that the applicant, already belonging to the Loco Pilot Passenger category, was therefore not considered.

The applicant approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking directions for consideration of his representations and candidature.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to be considered or permitted to exercise an option for the 25 posts of Loco Pilot Passenger (Loco), notwithstanding his existing posting as Loco Pilot Passenger (EMU/Motorman).

2. Whether the respondents’ failure to consider the applicant’s representations and claim for posting as Loco Pilot Passenger (Loco) warranted judicial intervention under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

3. Whether the Original Application was maintainable in view of the applicant already holding the post of Loco Pilot Passenger and receiving the corresponding promotional and monetary benefits.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, concerning applications against orders or omissions relating to service matters.

It applied the applicable Railway Establishment rules and promotional procedure governing appointment/posting to Loco Pilot categories, accepting that eligibility and options were to be processed in accordance with the Railway administration’s crew review and prescribed promotional procedure.

The Tribunal also proceeded on the principle that an employee already promoted and posted in the relevant Loco Pilot Passenger category, with attendant monetary benefits, could not claim an automatic right to appointment to a subsequently created or separately classified post merely on the basis of seniority.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents’ explanation that the Loco Pilot Passenger (Loco) posts were created only through the 2016 crew review and were distinct from the applicant’s existing Loco Pilot Passenger (EMU/Motorman) position.

Since the applicant had already completed the training and aptitude requirements for, and had been posted as, Loco Pilot Passenger (EMU), the respondents’ decision not to call for his option for the Loco category was treated as consistent with the administrative classification and procedure adopted for filling those posts.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant was receiving the benefits of his existing promotion and that the respondents had followed the prescribed promotional procedure; consequently, no enforceable deprivation or sufficient ground for issuing the requested directions was established.

The dismissal was without any order as to costs.