Union of India (UOI) and Others vs N. Vamanam Namboothiri

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—These writ petitions are filed by the Railway establishment challenging a common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench on O.A.79/09 and 487/09.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants, while working as AS Ms Ingur and Lalapet Division within the territorial jurisdiction of Salem Division, faced a situation where the Railways took the stand that they will be taken to have automatically transferred to Salem Division unless such of those staff opt out of Salem Division and choose to go back to Palghat Division in view of the direction of the Tribunal in O.A. 13/08. According to the applicants (Respondents), they have requested the Railways for transfer to Palghat Division while they were AS Ms and such requests have been cancelled on their selection as Traffic Apprentice Trainees and that they being at rank Nos. 2 and 5 in the select list of Traffic Trainees on completion of training, have a right to decide the Division of their choice. The Tribunal noted that the transfer sought for by the applicants was on mutual ground and were accordingly transferred to Palghat Division and posted in Ingur and Lalapet Stations. The Tribunal further noticed that selection to the post of Traffic Apprentices was conducted for Palghat Division, before Salem Division was formed and that Salem Division was established only during the training period of the Traffic Apprentices. Taking into consideration all the aspects, the Tribunal concluded that on the facts of the case, juxtaposed with the direction in O.A. 413/08, the applicants are entitled to be posted to Palghat Division and the establishment is to declare the posts of Traffic Apprentices earmarked for Palghat Division and obtain the choice of Division of the trainee Traffic Apprentices. The establishment is accordingly directed to post the applicants in Palghat Division on the basis of their rank in the select list. With the aforesaid, we do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the Tribunal.

We are not impressed by the submission of the Railways that there are other employees who may be aggrieved by the situation. We do not find that any such ground has been raised before the Tribunal or before us. We, also, do not find any reason why such employee would not have the right to agitate any such ground if aggrieved.

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order does not warrant interference in these writ petitions filed by the establishment. The writ petitions fail. They are accordingly dismissed.