V.K. DUBEY AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                         V.K. DUBEY AND ORS.                                    A
                                      v.
                      UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                               APRIL 7, 1997

              [K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]                               B

       Service Law-Seniolity-Determination of-Railways-Appellants
working on the diesel side of the locomotive operation-Subsequently ab-
sorbed on the electlical locomotive side-Dete1111ination of inter se senio1ity
between employees already w01*ing on the electlical locomotive side and those C
shifted from the diesel locomotive side to elecilic locomotive side-Tlibunal
holding since appellant's were deployed to the electlical side for the first time,
their seniolity was required to be adjudged from the date of their deployment
in the elect1ical locomotive operations and the previous service cannot be
counted for the pwpose of dete1111ination of inter se senio1ity-Tlibz111al also
protecting accmed lights of appellams'-Held there was no flaw in the Order D
passed by the Tlibunal.

      Rama Kant Chaturvedi v. Divisional Supdt., Nonhem Railway, [1980]
Supp. SCC 621 and South Eastem Railway through Chief Personnel Officer
& Ors. v. Ramanarain Singh & Ors. Etc., C.A. No. 2530/81 and batch dated        E
July 29, 1988 decided by Supreme Court referred to.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2883 of
1997.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.96 of the Central Ad-             F
ministrative Tribunal, Allahabad in O.A. No. 1024 of 1995.

        Vijay Bahuguna, D.K. Garg and Satpal Singh for the Appellants.

    Yogeshwar Prasad, Mrs. Rachna Gupta, P.K. Bajaj and Prashan
Kumar for the Respondents.                                                      G
        The following Order of the Court was delivered :

        Leave· granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

        This appeal, by special leave, arises from the order dated 18.12.1996   H
                                       693
     694                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench in O.A. No.
     1024/95.

            The appellants were initially drafted on the diesel side of the locomo-
     tive operations. Subsequently, on introduction of electrical engines they
     were given training and were absorbed on the electrical locomotive side.
                                                                                      -
B    The question of inter se seniority of employees already working on the
     electrical locomotive side and those shifted from the diesel locomotive side
     to the electrical locomotive side had arisen. The Tribunal has held that
     since they were deployed to the electrical side for the first time, their
     seniority was required to be adjudged from the date of their deployment
C    in the electrical locomotive operations and the previous service cannot be
     counted for the purpose of determination of inter se seniority. This con-
     troversy was considered by this Court in Rama Kant Chaturvedi v.
     Divisional Supdt., N01them Railway, [1980) Supp. SCC 621 wherein this
     Court had held as under :

D
              "The Diesel Unit of the Railways was constituted for the first time·
              apart from the Steam Unit already existing. The two units were
              treated as separate and distinct having different avenues of promo-
              tion. As considerable time might elapse before Diesel Cleaners
              could be promoted as Shunters and Drivers' Assistant in the diesel
·E            unit it was decided to draft Firemen on the steam side, possessing
              the minimum educational qualification of matriculation, to the
              diesel side as Drivers' Assistants after giving them the requisite
              training. That was done. All the initial appointments were on
              officiating basis. As a result of the appointments, some Firemen
F             Grade 'C' (the appellants), who were of lower category than
              Firemen Grade 'B' and Firemen Grade'A' but who happened to
              possess the minimum educational qualification which many of the
              Firemen Grades 'A; and 'B' did not possess, were drawn into the
            . diesel unit earlier than some of the Firemen Grades 'A' and 'B'
              who came in later as a result of the relaxation of the rule prescrib-
G             ing minimum educational qualification. The Railway Administra-
              tion issued instructions that the juniormost Firemen Grade 'C'
              officiating as Diesel Driver Assistant should be reverted in order
              to accommodate the senior staff. Pursuant to these instructions the
               appellants, all of whom were drawn from the category of Firemen
H              Grade 'C' and who had been appointed as officiating Drivers'
                         V.K. DUBEYv. U.O.I.                              695

        Assistants, were reverted to the steam side as Firemen Grade 'C'         A
        in order to make way for Firemen Grades 'A' and 'B' who were
        appointed as Drivers' Assistants on the diesel side long after the
        appointment of the appellants as Drivers' Assistants on the diesel
        side. Questions for determination were whether the earlier appoin-
        tees could claim seniority over the later appointees and whether         B
        the Railway Administration was justified in reverting the appellants
        to the old unit. Allowing the appeals the Supreme Court.

        Held:

            Those who were drafted into the diesel unit earlier would not        C
        lose the benefit of their continuous service on the diesel unit merely
        because the appointments were on an officiating basis and because
        others who were senior to them on the steam side came in or chose
        to come in at a later stage. If seniors on the steam side did not
        come in earlier it was because they were barred from coming in
        by the requirement of a minimum educational qualification. The           D
        subsequent relaxation of the rule cannot enable them to take a
        'frog leap' over the heads of those who had come into the diesel
        side· earlier. The seniority on the steam side is of no relevance in
        determining seniority on the diesel side when they are appointed
        on the diesel side on different days."
                                                                                 E
     The ratio therein was followed by another Bench of this Court in
South Eastem Railway through Chief Personnel Officer & Ors. v. Ramanarain
Singh & Ors. Etc. (C.A. No. 2530/81), and batch, dated July 29, 1988.

      Shri Vijay Bahuguna, learned senior counsel appearing for the ap- F
pellants, contends that since they had been working on the diesel side for
a long number of years, merely because they were sent to training for three
months to be absorbed in the electrical locomotive operations, their entire
previous length of service cannot be wiped out causing detriment to their
length of service and promotional avenues on account of the change in the
policy. Therefore, the view taken by this Court requires reconsideration. G
We find no force in the contention. It is seen that the diesel engine drivers
and the staff working with them operates in one sector, namely, diesel
locomotive sector, while electrical engine drivers and the staff operating on
the electrical engines operate on a different sector. Consequent upon the
gradual displacement of diesel engines, instead of retrenching them from H
    696                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A service they were sought to be absorbed by giving necessary training in the
    trains operating on electrical energy. As a consequence, they were shifted
    to a new cadre. Under these circumstances, they cannot have a lien on the
    posts on electrical side nor they be entitled to seniority over the staff
    regularly working in the electrical locomotives detriment. Under those
    circumstances, this Court has held that they cannot have a seniority over
B   them. However, the Tribunal in the impugned order has well protected the
    rights which they had already accrued as under :

             "We have been informed by the departmental representative that
             on such a re-determination of the seniority a large number of
c            convertees who have already advances several steps in the electri-
             cal side would face reversion resulting in not only hardship to such
             individual but also functional problem in running the Locomotives.
             We, therefore, provide that on such re-determination of seniority,
             the persons who have already been promoted to higher grades in
             Electrical side, shall not be reverted .but their subsequent advan-
D            cement to still higher grades shall be dependent on such re-deter-
             mined seniority. However, no further promotions shall be made by
             the respondents, in the electrical side in contravention of the
             aforesaid principle of seniority."

          In view of the above direction, the accrued rights are protected and
E   being enjoyed by the appellants. The Tribunal's order, therefore, directed
    to safeguard the rights already had by the appellants. However, future
    promotions depend upon the inter se seniority that may be determined by
    the authorities as directed by the Tribunal. Thus we find no flaw in the
    order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference.
F
          The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

    T.N.A.                                                    Appeal dismissed.