V BHANSALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE O.A. has been revived in view of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 1606/2001. Earlier vide orders dated 7.6.2000 the O.A. was rejected on the ground of same being barred due to non-joinder of necessary parties. However the Hon'ble High Court has set aside the order and permitted the applicants to bring the necessary parties on record. Pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, the O.A. has been received and the applicants are permitted to bring the private respondents No. 3 to 12 on record. After the private respondents were served with the notice and they have filed the reply, we have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties at length on O.A.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the present O.A. are as follows:

(3.) THE private respondents who were joined after the restoration of the O.A. by the Hon'ble High Court have filed their detailed written statement and contended inter alia that the seniority list which has been settled for once should not be reopened after lapse of many years at the instance of the party who has chosen to keep quiet and has inserted forcefully without adopting procedure of law, since raking up old matters like seniority after a long time, is likely to result in administrative complications and difficulties. THEy have also questioned the merger theory and contended that the merger generally is allowed when one unit closes for any reason whatsoever and the staff becomes surplus. THE employees of that unit on closure or on merger be given lower seniority below the employees of that unit who were waiting promotion. According to them, some junior most employees of Churchgate Unit for the promotional benefits made the grievances and with the connivance of Union got the letter of merger issued. THEy have contended that this letter dated 1.11.1991 is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and against the rules. According to them, the policy decision of merger of the two different units can be taken by the Railway Board and not by the General Manager. THE General Manager has no power to frame any policy which is inconsistent with the rules made by Railway Board. THEy have pointed out that the Railway Board vide their letter dated 28.2.1985 decentralised the cadre of Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerks in the scale of Rs. 330-560/- and Rs. 425-640/- and brought under the control of each Division w.e.f. 1.8.1985. THE General Manager therefore had no power to put some of the employees of Churchgate Unit into the cadre of Bombay Division Unit, hence the action of the respondents regarding merger is without any authority whatsoever. THEy have contended that the whole action of respondent No. 1 allowing merger for some individuals for the purpose of promotion is bad in law and against the Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. According to them, they were already promoted on regular basis as ARS and at that time the applicants were working on ad hoc basis. THE applicants have no right to be fixed in the seniority list above them. THEy have relied on the seniority list of 1.6.1992 of the Bombay Division wherein they were working as ARS on regular basis. THEy have also questioned the fixation of cut-off date for merger as 31.10.1988 by the authorities contending that when the options were invited by 20.12.1991 then how the cut-off date for merger is fixed as 31.10.1988. THE same according to them is wrong, illegal and against the rules. THE seniority can be fixed only from the date of joining the BCT Unit. THEy have also maintained that they were not consulted or they were not heard before the applicants were obliged by the respondent No. 1. THEy have also contended that merger of applicants in Bombay Division is in violation of rules and as such the merger is bad in law. THEy have prayed that the O.A. be dismissed with cost.