AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Haripal, Member J
Applicants in O.A 180/00188/2023 are Assistants in the Electrical (Traction Distribution) Department of Salem Division, Southern Railway. They are aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the respondents in filling up the vacancies of Helpers in the Traction Distribution Department of Palakkad Division overlooking the applicants' priority. They claim that they are eligible to be considered for appointment by transfer against the vacancies of Assistants in Palakkad Division in preference to direct recruits. They apprehend that once the vacancies are filled up by appointing direct recruits, their chances for appointment by transfer will be lost for ever. They seek a declaration that they are entitled to be considered for appointment by transfer against the existing vacancies of Assistants in Palakkad Division and to direct the respondents to consider the applicants for appointment by transfer in Palakkad Division.
O.A 189/2023 is filed by same category of employees working in Salem Division. They are aspiring for appointment by transfer against the vacancies of Assistant, Traction Distribution in the Thiruvananthapuram Division in preference to direct recruits.
The contentions of the applicants in both the Original Applications are one and same. Both the applications were admitted and the learned SCGSC took notice for the respondents. At the time of admission, she was directed to seek and confirm whether the counter part Divisions have forwarded the transfer applications. Later, the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel has raised preliminary objection challenging the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal to entertain the Original Application.
I heard the learned counsel on both sides on maintainability and perused the records.
Smt Kala T. Gopi, learned counsel for the applicants reiterated that this Tribunal has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the respondents. She explained that the Railway is taking expeditious steps under the Mission mode for filling up all vacancies in different categories. Referring to Annexures A-3 and A-6, she submitted that the Railway is following a time frame for filling up the vacancies, steps taken for filling up the vacancies are nearing completion. There are specific directions to the respondents to consider the transfer requests on bottom seniority and it should be forwarded to the appropriate Railway/Division without causing any delay. The grievance of the applicants is that the respondents have not taken a decision on the applications/representations moved by the applicants seeking inter-divisional transfer to Palakkad and Thiruvananthapuram. She also placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in O.P(CAT) No.68 of 2021 where, when an O.A was dismissed by this Tribunal stating that it has no jurisdiction, the High Court intervened, set aside the same and remitted it back to this Tribunal after restoring the O.A to the files. According to the learned counsel, the facts are identical and therefore, objection regarding territorial jurisdiction has no basis.
On the other hand, according to Smt O.M. Shalina, the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, judgment in OP(CAT) 68/2021 is not applicable, facts are different, that in the said judgment, the High Court has not taken a stand that this Tribunal has jurisdiction. Moreover, it is the admitted case that all the applicants are working in Salem Division which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, the representations given by the applicants can be forwarded to the proposed Railway/ Division only in accordance with standing instructions. So long as the representations have not been considered, this Tribunal does not get jurisdiction to grant any relief as prayed for.
Admittedly, all these applicants are employees in Salem Division in Tamil Nadu over which this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction. There is no dispute that this matter is controlled by Rule 6 of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which reads thus:-
“ 6. Place of filing applications.—
(1) An application shall ordinarily be filed by an applicant with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction—
(i) the applicant is posted for the time being, or
(ii) the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen :
Provided that with the leave of the Chairman the application may be filed with the Registrar of the Principal Bench and subject to the orders under section 25, such application shall be heard and disposed of by the Bench which has jurisdiction over the matter.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) persons who have ceased to be in service by reason of retirement, dismissal or termination of service may at his option file an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application. “
Here, Rule 6(2) is not applicable since the applicants are serving officers in Salem Division. Similarly, Rule 6(1)(i) also excludes the jurisdiction of this Tribunal as they are posted in Salem Division. Now the remaining question is whether the applicants have any cause of action, wholly or in part, which confer jurisdiction on this Tribunal.
Cause of action means the bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability (Sonic Surgicals v. National Insurance Company Ltd. [(2010) 1 SCC 135). In the restricted sense 'cause of action' means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the cause, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction coupled with the right itself. (Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India AIR (2001) SC 416).
It is also a settled principle of law that a party cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court which lacks jurisdiction.
The Railways is on a Mission mode for filling the vacancies of Assistants in Electrical (Traction Distribution) Department as well and vacancies might be there in Palakkad and Thiruvananthapuram Divisions. Before considering the question of jurisdiction, it is appropriate to say that inter-divisional and inter-railway transfers at employee's request are allowed only in the initial recruitment grade or in such intermediate grades in which there is an element of direct recruitment and the staff in such cases of transfer is assigned bottom seniority in the relevant grade. For considering the requests, Railways has a fool-proof clearing house system. Procedure followed by the Railways as per standing instructions insist that once an application for inter-railway/inter-divisional transfer is filed before the competent authority, a seniority register has to be maintained for each category. Once such a representation is forwarded to the Railway/Division to which transfer is sought, a register has to be maintained by them also and the applicants will be relieved only after getting a 'No Objection Certificate' from the recipient Railway/Division.
All the same, decision as to whether representations or applications for transfer should be forwarded is entirely within the domain of the competent authority under whom the employee is working. As rightly pointed out by the learned SCGSC, such a representation will be forwarded only if it is feasible and operational requirements do not cause fetters to the smooth running of the Railway/Division. To put in other words, once a request for transfer is submitted, as a preliminary step, the competent authority under whom the employee serves should take a decision to forward the representation to the Railway/Division to which transfer is sought. It is for the competent authority to decide, subject to assessment of various parameters, the transfer is feasible. Normally such representations would be forwarded only if the transfer and consequent relief would not cause hampers or operational hurdles to the Railway/Division.
Having understood the procedure thus, we can turn back to Rule 6 of the C.A.T (Procedure) Rules, 1987. As already indicated, Rule 6(1)(i) cannot be invoked by the applicants since they are posted in Salem Division. Turning to the question of cause of action now the matter to be considered is whether any cause of action has arisen either wholly or in part within Palakkad or Thiruvananthapuram Division for invoking jurisdiction of this Tribunal. After considering rival contentions, I do not find a positive answer. The Division authorities in Palakkad or Thiruvananthapuram can take cognizance of the matter only if a signal is given from the Salem Division expressing their intention to forward the representations. Here, the matter remains at the preliminary stage. The competent authority in Salem Division has not yet taken a call. They have not decided to forward the representations to Palakkad/ Thiruvananthapuram Divisions. If only such a signal originates from Salem Division, the competent authority in Palakkad and Thiruvananthapuram Divisions will be able to take a decision.
The grievance of the applicants, on reading between the lines, is that the representations have not been forwarded by the competent authority in Salem Division. If alone the authorities in Salem Division take a decision to spare their services for inter-divisional transfer, then only the ball would pass to the court of Palakkad or Thiruvananthapuram Division. Here the ball still remains in the court of Salem Division. That means, there is no difficulty in holding that no cause of action either wholly or in part has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
The Tribunal cannot usurp jurisdiction on the apprehension that the chances of the applicants would be doomed if the representations are not forwarded. In my view, the applicants have approached this Tribunal on hypothetical cause of action.
As rightly pointed out by the learned SCGSC, in the judgment in O.P(CAT) 68/21, there is no finding that this Tribunal has jurisdiction in the matter, but only stated that while passing the impugned order Rule 6(1)(ii) was not adhered to. I have already found that at least for the present, so long as the competent authority in Salem Division has not taken a decision, the authorities in Palakkad /Thiruvananthapuram do not get jurisdiction to take a call on the desired transfer.
On consideration of these facts, I am of the view that the entire cause of action is in Salem Division and thus this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain both the Original Applications. The Original Applications are accordingly rejected. No costs.
M.A Nos.180/358/2023 and M.A 180/360/2023 are also closed.
(Dated, this the 12th May, 2023)