The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed a Central Administrative Tribunal order that granted notional promotion to railway employees from the date of their application. The court emphasized that delays caused by one division and arbitrary actions by another within the Railways cannot deprive employees of their rightful benefits.
Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Rajendra Kumar-IV stated,
“Seen, thus both ICF and CMLRW are two arms of the same department of the Union of India. Delay caused by one and arbitrary action taken by another may not be relied any benefit accruing to the respondents. Ultimately, it is the department of the Railways, under the Union of India that remains primarily responsible and liable for the mistake committed either by ICF or CMLRW or both.”
Background: The respondents, initially appointed and serving at the Integral Coach Factory, Chennai (ICF), applied for deputation to the Coach Mid Life Rehabilitation Workshop (CMLRW), Jhansi, in 2013. In 2018, they sought repatriation to ICF, which was denied without clear reasons. They then highlighted that their promotion was due at ICF. However, before this could be addressed, the cadre at ICF was closed, and they remained at CMLRW. While the Central Administrative Tribunal proceedings were ongoing, they were promoted in 2021. The Tribunal granted them notional promotion from 2018, a decision later challenged in the High Court.
The Union’s counsel argued that the delay in promotions shouldn’t be attributed to the Union, as the repatriation request was denied by ICF, not CMLRW. On the other hand, the respondents’ counsel emphasized that there was no legal or contractual prohibition against their repatriation.
High Court’s Verdict: The Court noted that the Indian Railways is an integral part of the Union of India, with ICF Chennai and CMLRW being its departments. The clause preventing frequent switches between cadres was not an absolute rule against promotions or repatriations.
The Court emphasized that employees’ rights to promotion in their parent department shouldn’t be compromised due to administrative delays in transferring applications between departments. The Court concluded that the denial to allow the respondents to rejoin before the cadre closure was
“wholly arbitrary and indefensible at the hands of the Indian Railways, a department of Union of India.”
Case Details: Title: Union Of India And 4 Others v. Ashutosh Kumar And 5 Others [WRIT – A No. – 15197 of 2023] Petitioner’s Counsel: Vivek Kumar Singh Respondent’s Counsel: Sudhanshu Kumar, Alok Kumar Dave
