Ghanshyam Meena vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Sunil Ambwani and Kashi Nath Pandey, JJ.—We have heard Shri S.K. Shukla for the Petitioner. Shri Govind Saran appears for the Respondents.

The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.7.2007 passed by the Director General, Railway Protection Force, rejecting his representation for promotion to the post of Assistant Security Commissioner Grade ''A'' Junior Scale on the ground that he was not in the zone of consideration for ad hoc promotion, to the post of ASC Junior Scale, as his name did not appear in the seniority list of Inspectors issued on 20.3.2006.

The Petitioner was directly recruited as Sub Inspector in Railway Protection Force on 27.8.1990 as a Scheduled Tribe candidate. He was promoted on the post of Inspector Grade-II on 21.12.1998, and Inspector Grade-I on 26.12.2001 vide F.O. No. 160/2001. His pay was fixed by the Divisional Security Commissioner, by his order No. 02/2002 dated 23.1.2002 in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500+200, as special salary admissible to Inspector Grade-I, RPF.

It is stated that Rule 78 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 provides for the rank structure. After the creation of new Railway Zone (East Central Railways), on bifurcation of Eastern Railway w.e.f. 1.1.2002, the Petitioner was within the jurisdiction of East Central Railway. The post of Assistant Security Commissioner is of the same rank that of Assistant Commandant. A list of promotion to the post of Assistant Security Commissioner of 127 candidates, was published on 16.2.2006. Only 35 candidates, out of this list, were in the Inspector Grade-I, and remaining persons were in the Inspector Grade n. The Petitioner''s claim was ignored inspite of the fact that he is serving as Inspector Grade-I. The Petitioner gave a reminder on 31.1.2007 and after making several representations filed a Writ Petition No. 15083 of 2007, in which an order was passed on 26.3.2007 to decide his representation. It is alleged that the Director General, RPF, has erred in finding that since the Petitioner was not promoted as Inspector Grade-I on 10.1.1997, his name does not appear in the seniority list issued on 4.5.2006.

The Director General/RPF has observed in his order dated 3.7.2007, that Shri A.K.K. Singh, with whom the Petitioner has claimed parity, appears in the seniority list at serial No. 376 as against the placement of the Petitioner at serial No. 739. Shri A.K.K. Singh was empanneled as Inspector Grade-I on 6.3.1997, much before the Petitioner was promoted as Inspector Grade-I on 26.12.2001. Shri A.K.K. Singh could not be spared timely on account of administrative reasons, and was allowed to join at Rourkela as IPF Grade-I on 17.12.1997, hence his date of promotion is shown as 17.12.1997.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Director General/RPF, has not considered any of the points raised in his representation dated 31.1.2007. The juniors to the Petitioner mostly in Inspector Grade-II, were promoted to the post of Assistant Security Commissioner, by the order dated 16.2.2006. The Petitioner has been discriminated in making promotions inasmuch as the promotion list includes various Inspector''s Grade-II, whereas the Petitioner was promoted as Inspector Grade-I, on 26.12.2001.

In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents, it is stated that cadre restructuring in Railway Protection Force was done to implement the recommendations of 5th Pay Commission by which the rank of Naik was merged in the rank of Head Constable and the rank of Inspector Grade-I and II, Was merged in one rank of Inspector with special pay of Rs. 200/- to Inspector Grade-I, and accordingly the promotional channel from Inspector to Assistant Security Commissioner Group ''A'' was provided, in which Inspectors Grade-I as on 1.10.1996, were given priority due to their seniority. Thereafter a single common seniority list of Inspectors Grade-II, was prepared and circulated. Besides regular promotions, in the rank of Assistant Security Commissioner, financial upgradation under ''Assured Career Progession Scheme'' was also implemented. After the cadre re-structuring the post of Inspector Grade-I is not higher in rank to Inspector Grade-II. It is stated in para-7 of the counter affidavit, that the Petitioner has not impleaded the persons against whom he was claiming seniority.

The Director General in his impugned order dated 3.7.2007 has clarified that following the implementation of the 5th Pay Commission w.e.i. 10.10.1997, the pay scales of Inspector Grade-I and Inspector Grade-II became the same i.e. Rs. 6500-10500. It was, therefore, decided to maintain seniority list of Inspectors Grade-I, who were promoted prior to 10.10.1997 and also a seniority list of Inspectors, who were not promoted as Inspector Grade II prior to 10.10.1997. Accordingly a combined seniority list of Inspectors Grade-I was issued vide letter dated 4.5.2006 and another combined seniority list of Inspectors, who were promoted as Inspector Grade-II, was issued on 10.6.2005. The Petitioner was not promoted as Inspector Grade-I prior to 10.1.1997. His name, therefore, does not appear in the seniority list issued on 4.5.2006.

The Petitioner has not given the names of any person who was promoted as Inspector Grade-I, after his promotion by order of the Railways dated 26.12.2002, and was promoted as ASC Junior Scale before him, nor he has impleaded any such person in the writ petition. The discrimination claimed as against Shri A.K.K. Singh has been explained in the impugned order, against which no grievance can be made by him.

The writ petition is dismissed.