A M GURAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants in this O. A. are challenging the order dated 22.10.2001 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, Solapur and further order dated 18/22.4.2002 by which the representations of the applicants have been rejected in regard to their seniority as Diesel Assistants and consequential seniority as Goods Driver and Senior Goods Driver.

(2.) The applicants were selected as Apprentice Diesel Assistants in response to Employment Notice No. 07/89 by the Railway Recruitment Board. At the time, the selection took place, the pay scale of apprentice Diesel Assistant was Rs. 950-1,500. According to the letter of appointment, the applicants were required to undergo one year's training as apprentice Diesel Assistants. After which they were to be absorbed as Diesel Assistants against working post. The applicants have placed a copy of letter dated 18.5.1992 by which one of the applicants Shri Y.K. Ramesh Babu was informed about his selection pursuant to the recommendation by the Railway Recruitment Board. Similar letters were issued to all the applicants. According to the applicants, all of them joined service as apprentice on 20.6.1992 at Solapur and from that date they were sent to Bhusawal Training School for a period of 2 months and were subsequently deputed for practical training and there were vacancies available and there was shortage of staff, the training period of the applicants was curtailed in the exigencies of service. The first batch in which the applicants were included consisted of 23 diesel apprentices. Second batch consisted of 17 and the third batch 22. They were all selected by the same examination conducted in the year 1989. However, third batch was sent for training to Pune on 21.9.1.992. They were appointed on 21.9.1992 and were absorbed on 16.4.1993 as diesel assistants. The members of the second batch were also absorbed along with the applicants.

(3.) THE contention of the applicants is that the latest amendment of 1993 to Rule 303(a) is not applicable to them. Even the Chief Personnel Officer vide his letter dated 25.6.1996 had stated that the amendment to the Rule by the advance correction slip No. 9 with effect from 19.3.1993 is not applicable to the applicants since they were appointed prior to 1993. THEreafter, the Railway Administration published corrected seniority list, according to the applicants on 1.8.1996, a proper seniority list was drawn up in accordance with the un-amended rule. THEre were however representations against the aforesaid seniority list and the respondents again published a fresh seniority list on 31.8.1998 and further on 27.8.2001 which according to the applicants is the reflica of the earlier seniority list of 31.8.1998. THE applicants again represented to the respondents against seniority list of 31.8.1998 vide letter dated 29.9.98. A reply was given to the applicants on 22.10.2001 stating that the seniority of the applicants was revised in accordance with the advance correction slip No. 9.