Railway Worker Transferred From Arakkonam Gets Seniority Restored Over Juniors After Missing Trade Test There, Chennai CAT Orders

The applicant, a Railway Khalasi posted at Arakkonam, was transferred to Chennai in 2014 pursuant to a request-transfer order.

After his challenge to the transfer was dismissed by the Tribunal, the Madras High Court allowed his writ petition on 24 October 2016 and directed his restoration.

The respondents treated a later period as duty and paid him for it, but treated 4 February 2015 to 23 October 2016 as absence and did not restore his earlier seniority.

Although notified for a 2015 trade test at Arakkonam, he did not appear; he later qualified in 2017 and was promoted as Technician Grade III.

He challenged the refusal to restore his seniority and sought related promotional benefits.

The applicable Railway recruitment rules required a feeder-cadre employee to pass the prescribed trade test for promotion to Grade III.

The Tribunal applied the principle that an employee should not lose a legitimate promotional opportunity because of an administrative arrangement attributable to the employer, relying on Ram Ratan Mukherjee v. Union of India and Union of India v. Narahari Mukhi.

For the absence period, it relied on Leak Ali Khan v. Union of India, which discussed the Supreme Court’s order in Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, to distinguish counting an absence period for service benefits from entitlement to back wages.

The Tribunal also referred to the “catch-up” and stepping-up principles in Prem Kumar Verma, Charan Dass and Anant Ram Sharma concerning restoration of seniority or related benefits.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s failure to attend the 2015 trade test could not be considered in isolation: he had been transferred from Arakkonam, yet the respondents notified him for a test there and could not explain how he was expected to attend or why no alternative arrangement was made.

Since his eligibility to participate was not disputed, the respondents’ administrative arrangement could not fairly be used to deny him the opportunity afforded to his juniors.

As to the absence period, the Tribunal allowed continuity-related treatment but, applying the distinction between service regularisation and back wages, did not award salary for that period.

The Tribunal set aside the order dated 2 April 2018 and directed the respondents to treat 4 February 2015 to 23 October 2016 as duty for continuity of service and pensionary benefits, without arrears of salary.

It also directed restoration of the applicant’s seniority immediately above his immediate junior(s), with consequential benefits, including consideration for and grant of promotion to Grade II if otherwise eligible.

The directions were to be implemented within three months.

The final directions did not separately specify relief on the claim for salary for October and November 2014.