Reply From Law Cell
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Reply From Law Cell as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 3,554
- Pages: 30
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD
O. A. No. 571
of
2006
Narendra Kumar Mishra …………………………..Applicant Vs. Union of India and others…………………..Respondents
Parawise Comments on rejoinder reply :
I, Y.K. Srivastava Dy. Chief Accounts officer/ G, Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi do hereby, solemnly affirm and state as under:That I am working as Dy. Chief Accounts officer/ G in Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi, and as such fully conversant with the facts of the case. I am authorised to sign and verify these comments on rejoinder reply on behalf of respondents and competent to file the same. Parawise comments : 1.
No comments.
2.
Contents are denied and in reply thereto it is submitted that
miscelleneous application
annexed with the counter reply have
been filed as per extant rules and policy as such the
same
are
maintainable. 3. 4.
No comments. That the contents of para 4 of the rejoinder reply are not admitted in the form as stated and in reply thereto it is submitted that as per provisions contained in para 211.1 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol-I, 1989 Edition, promotion includespromotion not only from a lower grade to a higher grade but also, from one class to another class, from one group to another group. Further Appendix IV of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol-I, 1989 Edition also mention the word promotion of person holding substantively the post of Accounts clerk , JAA & AA to the rank of Stock Verifier, therefore, it is evident that posting from Account Asstt. on the post of Stock Verifier Gr. Rs. 5000-8000 is promotion. The Grade of Stock Verifier and Account Asstt. are identical The incumbent of the post of the Stock Verifier are paid Rs. 150 (now Rs. 240) Special Pay on passing the prescribed Appendix IV Examination of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, whereas this benefit is not extended to the incumbent of the post of the Account
Asst. Further it is submitted that the element of special pay of Rs. 150/-(now Rs. 240/-) is taken into account for pay fixation on further promotion on the post of Sr. Stock Verifier in Gr. Rs. 6500-10500/-
5.
No comments.
6.
No comments.
7.
That the contents of para 7
admitted at
of the rejoinder reply are not
all and in reply thereto it is submitted that as per
provisions
contained in para 211.1 of the Indian
Railway
Establishment
1989 Edition, promotion includes-
Manual Vol-I,
promotion from a lower
grade to a higher grade, from one class to
another class, from
one group to another group. Further Appendix IV
of the Indian
Railway Establishment Manual Vol-I, 1989 Edition also mention the word promotion of person holding post of clerk to the rank of Stock Verifier, therefore, it is evident that posting Gr. Rs. 5000-8000 and Account Asstt. are
from Account Asstt. on the post of Stock Verifier is promotion. The Grade of Stock Verifier identical The incumbent of the post of
the Stock Verifier are paid Rs.
150 (now Rs. 240) Special Pay
on passing the prescribed Appendix
IV
Examination
Indian Railway Establishment Manual, whereas
of
this
benefit is not extended to the incumbent of the post of the Account Asst. Further it is submitted that the element of special pay
of Rs. 150/-(now Rs. 240/-) is taken into account for pay
fixation on
further promotion on the post of Sr. Stock Verifier
in Gr. Rs. 6500-
10500/-
for proper appreciation and
adjudication of the issue involved in
the matter, the contents
of para 03 of the counter reply stating the brief facts of the case are reiterated.
8. Staff no further 9.
Matter has already been explained in Additional Member / Railway Board 's speaking order dated 27.02.06. As such clarification is required. No comments.
10.
All facts have already been explained in Additional Member /
Staff ,
Railway Board's speaking orders dt. 27.02.06.
Thus there is no
question of political interference by Member
of Parliament in this 11.
case as alleged by the applicant.
As already stated above, no question arises for restoration of
the
applicant
to its original place on the post of Senior
Stock Verifier. 12.
That in reply to the contents of para 12 it is submitted that order dated 27.2.2006 has been passed
in accordance with rule on the subject
after due application of mind by the Additional Member Staff Railway Board in compliance of the order dated 30.1. 2006 of this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No.69/2006 filed by the petitioner and suffers from no irregularity or illegality as the same is legal, valid and sustainable in Law, hence it is not liable to be quashed. 13.
No comments.
14.
That the contents of para 14 of the rejoinder reply are not admitted in the form as stated and in reply thereto it is submitted that as per provisions contained in para 211.1 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol-I, 1989 Edition, promotion includespromotion not only from a lower grade to a higher grade but also
from one class to another class, from one group to another group. Further Appendix IV of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol-I, 1989 Edition also mention the word promotion of person holding substantively post of clerk to the rank of Stock Verifier, therefore, it is evident that posting from Account Asstt. on the post of Stock Verifier Gr. Rs. 5000-8000 is promotion. The Grade of Stock Verifier and Account Asstt. are identical The incumbent of the post of the Stock Verifier are paid Rs. 150 (now Rs. 240) Special Pay on passing the prescribed Appendix IV Examination of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, whereas this benefit is not extended to the incumbent of the post of the Account Asst. Further it is submitted that the element of special pay of Rs. 150/-(now Rs. 24/-) is taken into account for pay fixation on further promotion on the post of Sr. Stock Verifier in Gr. Rs. 6500-10500/15.
No comments.
16.
No comments.
17.
That the contents and allegations made in para 17 are denied
and it is submitted that the request for deferment for posting as Stock
Verifier made by Sri Mishra has been treated as refusal as per provisions contained in para 224 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Vol-I by the Railway Board vide letter No. E(REP)I2005/DLW-11/48 dt. 6/9.1.2006. 18.
That the contents and allegations made in para 18 are denied and in reply thereto it is submitted that no such assurance was given to the petitioner as alleged in para under reply. His promotion was an error and the same has been condoned by Railway Board as per letter dt.
19.
Already explained in Para 12 above.
20.
No comments.
21.
That the contents of the para 21 of the rejoinder are not admitted in the forms as stated and in reply thereto the contents of the para 17 of the counter reply are reieterated.
22.
No comments.
23.
That in reply to para 23 it is submitted that in DLW there was only seniority list of Account Asstt since 1985 to 30.9.2004. However, no seniority list of Stock Verifiers is available since 1985 to 30.9.2004. However seniority lists of SV prior to 1985 are available. In the seniority list of Account Astt. of the aforesaid period only reference of Stock Verifier was made. Therefore, question to challenge the same
does not arise. However, in the seniority list of Stock Verifiers dt. 1.10.2004 the petitioner has been shown as senior to Sri Jamaluddin and Sri Rai erroneously as decided by the Railway Board vide letter dt. 6/9.1.2006 . 24.
That in reply to para 24, it is submitted that in DLW cadre of Stock Verifiers and Account Asstts are already existing separately. Separate seniority lists of SV prior to 1985 are evidence to this. Further it is submitted that as mentioned in the earlier para 23 of this reply that only seniority list of Account Asstt. was being maintained since 1985 to 30.9.2004. In such a situation if a person who is senior as Account Asstt. and promoted and posted on the post of Stock Verifier from a later panel then he stands junior to the one who join as Stock Verifier from earlier panel. This is a characteristic feature of a cadre.
25.
That the contents and allegation of the para 25 are denied and it is submitted that the seniority list issued on 01-10-2004 for the post of Stock Verifiers was objected to by the respondent No. 4 & 5. In view of the objection raised by respondent No. 4 & 5 with regard to seniority list issued on 01-10-2004 and thereby promotion made as Sr. Stock Verifier, the matter was considered by the Railway Board and Railway Board vide their letter dt. 6/9.1.2006 settled the issue in
the light of relevant rules on the subject.
26.
Need no comments.
27.
Not admitted and in reply thereto the contents of the para 03
( XII ) of the counter reply are reieterated. 28.
Not admitted and reply thereto the contents of para 22 of the
counter reply are 29.
reieterated.
Not admitted and in reply thereto the contents of para 23 of the
counter reply are reieterated. 30.
No comments.
31.
The contents are denied and reply thereto the contents of para
25 of the counter reply are reieterated. 32.
No comments.
33.
No comments.
34.
No comments.
35.
No comments.
36. further 37. further 38. further
Already replied in preceding paragraph hence no needs for comments. Already replied in preceding paragraphs hence no needs for comments. Already replied in preceding paragraphs hence no needs for comments.
39.
Need no comments.
40.
No comments.
41.
No comments.
42.
In view of the facts stated in para 03 stating breif history of the
case the claim of the petitioner is not tenable and he is not entitled for any relief as shortfall as OA and same is liable to be dismissed. 43.
Need no comments.
V E R I FI CAT I O N
I, Y.K. Srivastava Dy. Chief Accounts Officer/ G in Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi do hereby verify that contents of paras 1 and 2 of this counter reply are true to my personal knowledge, paras 3 to 35 are verified from record and paras 36 to 39 are base on legal advise which I believe to be true and rest is submissions before this Hon’ble Tribunal. Dated-
......-9-2006
Place:-D.L.W, Varanasi
Signature
That the deponent has gone through the Original Application and its annexures filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The deponent has understood the contents thereof and as such is in a position to reply the same. PARAWISE REPLY 4
5.
That the contents of para 2 and 3 of the claim petition need no
comments. 6.
That the contents of para 4.1 of the petition are matter of record and need no comments.
7.
7.
That the contents of para 4.4 of the petition are matter of record
and need no comments. 8.
That in reply to para 4.5 of the petition it is submitted that the petitioner vide his representation dt. 3-1-95 (Annexure A-5 to the O.A.) expressed his inability to join on the post of Stock Verifier for few days stating to post the Junior empanelled employee as such Mohd. Jamaluddin whose name finds place at Sr. No. 2 of the panel dt. 5-9-94 was promoted on the post of Stock Verifier vide order dt. 51-95.
9.
10.
That the contents and allegations made in para 4.7 are denied
and in reply thereto it is submitted that no such assurance was given to the petitioner as alleged in para under reply. 11.
That the contents and allegations made in para 4.8 are denied and in reply thereto, it is submitted that the posting of Account Asstt. as Stock Verifier is promotion as per provisions contained in para 211 and Appendix-IV of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, V0l.-I.
12.
That the contents and allegations made in para 4.9 are matter of record and need no comments.
13.
That the contents and allegations made in para 4.10 of the petition are denied it is submitted that there was no occasion to take place the
applicant as senior or junior to the incumbent of the to Stock Verifier immediately after his posting as Stock Verifier. Seniority list of Stock Verifier was published in 1985. No seniority list of the Stock Verifier was published by DLW Administration after 1985 during this period therefore, question of raising objection by the other two Stock Verifier did not arise. 14.
That the contents and allegations made in para 4.11 & 4.12 are matter of record and need no comment.
15.
That in reply to para 4.13 of the petition it is submitted that in DLW there was only seniority list of Account Asstt since 1985
to
30.9.2004. However, no seniority list of Stock Verifiers is available since 1985 to 30.9.2004. In the seniority list of Account Astt. of the aforesaid period only reference of Stock Verifier was made. Therefore, question to challenge the same does not arise. However, in the seniority list of Stock Verifiers dt. 1.10.2004 the petitioner has been shown as senior to Sri Jamaluddin and Sri Rai erroneously as decided by the Railway Board vide letter dt. 6/9.1.2006 . 16.
That in reply to para 4.14 of the petition it is submitted that in DLW cadre of Stock Verifier and Account Asstt are already existing as separate. Further it is submitted that as mentioned in the earlier para
4.13 of this counter reply that only seniority list of Account Asstt. was being maintained since 1985 to 30.9.2004. In such a situation if a person who is senior as Account Asstt. and promoted and posted on the post of Stock Verifier from a later panel then he stands junior to the one who join as Stock Verifier from earlier panel. This is a characteristic feature of a cadre. 17.
That the contents and allegation of the para 4.15 of the petition are denied and it is submitted that the seniority list issued on 01-10-2004 for the post of Stock Verifiers was objected by the respondent No. 4 & 5. In view of the objection raised by respondent No. 4 & 5 with regard to seniority list issued on 01-10-2004 and thereby promotion made as Sr. Stock Verifier, the matter was considered by the Railway Board and Railway Board vide their letter dt. 6/9.1.2006 settled the issue in the light of relevant rules on the subject.
18.
That in reply to para 4.16 of the petition it is submitted that the opportunity of hearing at the time of deciding the issue by the Board was not required under the rules.
19.
That in reply to para 4.17 of the petition it is submitted that since the petitioner asked for deferment of his promotion on the post of Stock Verifier and to join later on, he stands junior to the other two
incumbent on the post of Stock Verifier therefore, he can not be promoted to the higher grade of Sr. Stock Verifier ahead of them as stated in para 211 and Appendix IV of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol-I that posting of Account Asstt. on the post of Stock Verifier is promotion. Therefore, the provisions of para 224 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol-I is applicable in this case. 20.
That the contents of the para 4.18 of the petition are denied and in reply thereto it is submitted that as per provisions contained in para 224 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol-I, the deferment of promotion and posting on the post of Stock Verifier as pleaded by the petitioner is refusal therefore, necessary action has been taken by the Administration in the matter. The Railway Board vide there letter dt. 6/9.1.2006 has decided the issue.
21.
That the contents and allegations made in para 4.19 of the petition are denied and in reply there to the order dt. 9.1.2006 passed by the Railway Board is in accordance with the rules on the subject after considering the full facts of the case.
22.
That in reply to para 4.20 of the petition it is submitted that the Railway Board in compliance of the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal dt.
30.1.2006 passed in O.A. No. 69 of 2006 has considered all the points raised in O.A. by the petitioner in the light of rules and circulars on the subject and disposed the same by a reasoned and speaking order after thorough application of mind. 23.
That the contents of para 4.21 & 4.22 of the application is matter of record and need no comment.
24.
That the contents of para 4.23 of the petition are denied and in reply thereto it is submitted that posting of Account Asstt on the post of Stock Verifier as clarified by the Railway Board vide their letter dt. 6/9.1.2006 and in terms of para 211 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol-I.
25.
That the contents of para 4.24 of the petition are denied and in reply thereto the contents of para 7 of this counter reply are reiterated.
26.
That the contents of para 4.25 of the petition are denied and in reply thereto it is submitted that as per provisions contained in para 211 & Appendix-IV of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual as well as clarified vide Railway Board vide letter dt. 6/9.1.2006, the post of a Stock Verifier is a promotion post therefore, provisions of para 224 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual is applicable in the petitioner's case.
27.
That the contents of para 4.26 of the petition is a matter of record and need no comments.
28.
That the contents of para 4.27 & 4.28 of the petition is denied and in reply thereto it is submitted that during the alleged period i.e. between 1996 to 29-9-2004 no seniority list of Stock Verifier was published as such their was no occasion to raise objection by the two other Stock Verifier with regard to seniority.
29.
That the contents and allegations made in para 4.29 of the petition are denied and in reply thereto it is submitted that the order dt. 9.1.2006 is in accordance with the rules on the subject and has been passed by the Railway Board after due application of mind and considering the full facts of the case.
30.
That the contents of para 4.30 & 4.31 of the petition are matter of record.
31.
That the contents and allegations made in para 4.32 of the petition are denied and in reply thereto it is submitted that to revert the petitioner from the post of Sr. Stock Verifier to the post of Stock Verifier has been taken in accordance with the order passed by the Railway Board contained in their letter dt. 6/9.1.2006.
32.
That the contents of para 4.33 of the petition are denied and in reply
thereto the contents of para 7 of this counter reply are reiterated. 33.
That in reply to para 4.34 of the petition it is submitted that no action for recovery of salary paid to the petitioner from 1.11.2003 as alleged in the para under reply has been initiated keeping in view the interim order dt. 10.7.2006 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
34.
That in view of the facts stated in this counter reply the applicant has neither any prima-facie case nor cause of action to file the present petition and the same is liable to dismissed/ejected.
35.
That contents of para 5 of the claim petition are denied. It is further stated that the grounds raised in the claim petition being devoid of any merit and being based on misconception of facts and law are not legally tenable and are liable to be rejected.
36.
That contents of para 6 of the claim petition need no comments.
37.
That the averments made in para 7 of the claim petition are exclusively in the knowledge of the petitioner and as such the answering-Respondents are not in a position to offer any comments.
38.
That the contents of para 8 of the claim petition are denied. It is further stated that for the facts and circumstances stated above the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the para under reply and the same is liable to be dismissed.
39.
That the contents of para 9 of the claim petition are denied. It is further stated that no case whatsoever is made out for granting interim relief, especially when the main relief and interim relief are substantially the same and the interim order dated 10. 7. 2006 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal is liable to be vacated.
40.
That even otherwise the claim petition lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed with costs to the respondents.
V E R I FI CAT I O N
I, Y.K. Srivastava Dy. Chief Accounts Officer/ G in Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi do hereby verify that contents of paras 1 and 2 of this counter reply are true to my personal knowledge, paras 3 to 35 are verified from record and paras 36 to 39 are base on legal advise which I believe to be true and rest is submissions before this Hon’ble Tribunal. Dated-
......-9-2006
Place:-D.L.W, Varanasi
Signature
O. A. No. 571
of
2006
Narendra Kumar Mishra …………………………..Applicant Vs. Union of India and others…………………..Respondents
Parawise Comments on rejoinder reply :
I, Y.K. Srivastava Dy. Chief Accounts officer/ G, Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi do hereby, solemnly affirm and state as under:That I am working as Dy. Chief Accounts officer/ G in Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi, and as such fully conversant with the facts of the case. I am authorised to sign and verify these comments on rejoinder reply on behalf of respondents and competent to file the same. Parawise comments : 1.
No comments.
2.
Contents are denied and in reply thereto it is submitted that
miscelleneous application
annexed with the counter reply have
been filed as per extant rules and policy as such the
same
are
maintainable. 3. 4.
No comments. That the contents of para 4 of the rejoinder reply are not admitted in the form as stated and in reply thereto it is submitted that as per provisions contained in para 211.1 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol-I, 1989 Edition, promotion includespromotion not only from a lower grade to a higher grade but also, from one class to another class, from one group to another group. Further Appendix IV of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol-I, 1989 Edition also mention the word promotion of person holding substantively the post of Accounts clerk , JAA & AA to the rank of Stock Verifier, therefore, it is evident that posting from Account Asstt. on the post of Stock Verifier Gr. Rs. 5000-8000 is promotion. The Grade of Stock Verifier and Account Asstt. are identical The incumbent of the post of the Stock Verifier are paid Rs. 150 (now Rs. 240) Special Pay on passing the prescribed Appendix IV Examination of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, whereas this benefit is not extended to the incumbent of the post of the Account
Asst. Further it is submitted that the element of special pay of Rs. 150/-(now Rs. 240/-) is taken into account for pay fixation on further promotion on the post of Sr. Stock Verifier in Gr. Rs. 6500-10500/-
5.
No comments.
6.
No comments.
7.
That the contents of para 7
admitted at
of the rejoinder reply are not
all and in reply thereto it is submitted that as per
provisions
contained in para 211.1 of the Indian
Railway
Establishment
1989 Edition, promotion includes-
Manual Vol-I,
promotion from a lower
grade to a higher grade, from one class to
another class, from
one group to another group. Further Appendix IV
of the Indian
Railway Establishment Manual Vol-I, 1989 Edition also mention the word promotion of person holding post of clerk to the rank of Stock Verifier, therefore, it is evident that posting Gr. Rs. 5000-8000 and Account Asstt. are
from Account Asstt. on the post of Stock Verifier is promotion. The Grade of Stock Verifier identical The incumbent of the post of
the Stock Verifier are paid Rs.
150 (now Rs. 240) Special Pay
on passing the prescribed Appendix
IV
Examination
Indian Railway Establishment Manual, whereas
of
this
benefit is not extended to the incumbent of the post of the Account Asst. Further it is submitted that the element of special pay
of Rs. 150/-(now Rs. 240/-) is taken into account for pay
fixation on
further promotion on the post of Sr. Stock Verifier
in Gr. Rs. 6500-
10500/-
for proper appreciation and
adjudication of the issue involved in
the matter, the contents
of para 03 of the counter reply stating the brief facts of the case are reiterated.
8. Staff no further 9.
Matter has already been explained in Additional Member / Railway Board 's speaking order dated 27.02.06. As such clarification is required. No comments.
10.
All facts have already been explained in Additional Member /
Staff ,
Railway Board's speaking orders dt. 27.02.06.
Thus there is no
question of political interference by Member
of Parliament in this 11.
case as alleged by the applicant.
As already stated above, no question arises for restoration of
the
applicant
to its original place on the post of Senior
Stock Verifier. 12.
That in reply to the contents of para 12 it is submitted that order dated 27.2.2006 has been passed
in accordance with rule on the subject
after due application of mind by the Additional Member Staff Railway Board in compliance of the order dated 30.1. 2006 of this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No.69/2006 filed by the petitioner and suffers from no irregularity or illegality as the same is legal, valid and sustainable in Law, hence it is not liable to be quashed. 13.
No comments.
14.
That the contents of para 14 of the rejoinder reply are not admitted in the form as stated and in reply thereto it is submitted that as per provisions contained in para 211.1 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol-I, 1989 Edition, promotion includespromotion not only from a lower grade to a higher grade but also
from one class to another class, from one group to another group. Further Appendix IV of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol-I, 1989 Edition also mention the word promotion of person holding substantively post of clerk to the rank of Stock Verifier, therefore, it is evident that posting from Account Asstt. on the post of Stock Verifier Gr. Rs. 5000-8000 is promotion. The Grade of Stock Verifier and Account Asstt. are identical The incumbent of the post of the Stock Verifier are paid Rs. 150 (now Rs. 240) Special Pay on passing the prescribed Appendix IV Examination of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, whereas this benefit is not extended to the incumbent of the post of the Account Asst. Further it is submitted that the element of special pay of Rs. 150/-(now Rs. 24/-) is taken into account for pay fixation on further promotion on the post of Sr. Stock Verifier in Gr. Rs. 6500-10500/15.
No comments.
16.
No comments.
17.
That the contents and allegations made in para 17 are denied
and it is submitted that the request for deferment for posting as Stock
Verifier made by Sri Mishra has been treated as refusal as per provisions contained in para 224 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Vol-I by the Railway Board vide letter No. E(REP)I2005/DLW-11/48 dt. 6/9.1.2006. 18.
That the contents and allegations made in para 18 are denied and in reply thereto it is submitted that no such assurance was given to the petitioner as alleged in para under reply. His promotion was an error and the same has been condoned by Railway Board as per letter dt.
19.
Already explained in Para 12 above.
20.
No comments.
21.
That the contents of the para 21 of the rejoinder are not admitted in the forms as stated and in reply thereto the contents of the para 17 of the counter reply are reieterated.
22.
No comments.
23.
That in reply to para 23 it is submitted that in DLW there was only seniority list of Account Asstt since 1985 to 30.9.2004. However, no seniority list of Stock Verifiers is available since 1985 to 30.9.2004. However seniority lists of SV prior to 1985 are available. In the seniority list of Account Astt. of the aforesaid period only reference of Stock Verifier was made. Therefore, question to challenge the same
does not arise. However, in the seniority list of Stock Verifiers dt. 1.10.2004 the petitioner has been shown as senior to Sri Jamaluddin and Sri Rai erroneously as decided by the Railway Board vide letter dt. 6/9.1.2006 . 24.
That in reply to para 24, it is submitted that in DLW cadre of Stock Verifiers and Account Asstts are already existing separately. Separate seniority lists of SV prior to 1985 are evidence to this. Further it is submitted that as mentioned in the earlier para 23 of this reply that only seniority list of Account Asstt. was being maintained since 1985 to 30.9.2004. In such a situation if a person who is senior as Account Asstt. and promoted and posted on the post of Stock Verifier from a later panel then he stands junior to the one who join as Stock Verifier from earlier panel. This is a characteristic feature of a cadre.
25.
That the contents and allegation of the para 25 are denied and it is submitted that the seniority list issued on 01-10-2004 for the post of Stock Verifiers was objected to by the respondent No. 4 & 5. In view of the objection raised by respondent No. 4 & 5 with regard to seniority list issued on 01-10-2004 and thereby promotion made as Sr. Stock Verifier, the matter was considered by the Railway Board and Railway Board vide their letter dt. 6/9.1.2006 settled the issue in
the light of relevant rules on the subject.
26.
Need no comments.
27.
Not admitted and in reply thereto the contents of the para 03
( XII ) of the counter reply are reieterated. 28.
Not admitted and reply thereto the contents of para 22 of the
counter reply are 29.
reieterated.
Not admitted and in reply thereto the contents of para 23 of the
counter reply are reieterated. 30.
No comments.
31.
The contents are denied and reply thereto the contents of para
25 of the counter reply are reieterated. 32.
No comments.
33.
No comments.
34.
No comments.
35.
No comments.
36. further 37. further 38. further
Already replied in preceding paragraph hence no needs for comments. Already replied in preceding paragraphs hence no needs for comments. Already replied in preceding paragraphs hence no needs for comments.
39.
Need no comments.
40.
No comments.
41.
No comments.
42.
In view of the facts stated in para 03 stating breif history of the
case the claim of the petitioner is not tenable and he is not entitled for any relief as shortfall as OA and same is liable to be dismissed. 43.
Need no comments.
V E R I FI CAT I O N
I, Y.K. Srivastava Dy. Chief Accounts Officer/ G in Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi do hereby verify that contents of paras 1 and 2 of this counter reply are true to my personal knowledge, paras 3 to 35 are verified from record and paras 36 to 39 are base on legal advise which I believe to be true and rest is submissions before this Hon’ble Tribunal. Dated-
......-9-2006
Place:-D.L.W, Varanasi
Signature
That the deponent has gone through the Original Application and its annexures filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The deponent has understood the contents thereof and as such is in a position to reply the same. PARAWISE REPLY 4
5.
That the contents of para 2 and 3 of the claim petition need no
comments. 6.
That the contents of para 4.1 of the petition are matter of record and need no comments.
7.
7.
That the contents of para 4.4 of the petition are matter of record
and need no comments. 8.
That in reply to para 4.5 of the petition it is submitted that the petitioner vide his representation dt. 3-1-95 (Annexure A-5 to the O.A.) expressed his inability to join on the post of Stock Verifier for few days stating to post the Junior empanelled employee as such Mohd. Jamaluddin whose name finds place at Sr. No. 2 of the panel dt. 5-9-94 was promoted on the post of Stock Verifier vide order dt. 51-95.
9.
10.
That the contents and allegations made in para 4.7 are denied
and in reply thereto it is submitted that no such assurance was given to the petitioner as alleged in para under reply. 11.
That the contents and allegations made in para 4.8 are denied and in reply thereto, it is submitted that the posting of Account Asstt. as Stock Verifier is promotion as per provisions contained in para 211 and Appendix-IV of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, V0l.-I.
12.
That the contents and allegations made in para 4.9 are matter of record and need no comments.
13.
That the contents and allegations made in para 4.10 of the petition are denied it is submitted that there was no occasion to take place the
applicant as senior or junior to the incumbent of the to Stock Verifier immediately after his posting as Stock Verifier. Seniority list of Stock Verifier was published in 1985. No seniority list of the Stock Verifier was published by DLW Administration after 1985 during this period therefore, question of raising objection by the other two Stock Verifier did not arise. 14.
That the contents and allegations made in para 4.11 & 4.12 are matter of record and need no comment.
15.
That in reply to para 4.13 of the petition it is submitted that in DLW there was only seniority list of Account Asstt since 1985
to
30.9.2004. However, no seniority list of Stock Verifiers is available since 1985 to 30.9.2004. In the seniority list of Account Astt. of the aforesaid period only reference of Stock Verifier was made. Therefore, question to challenge the same does not arise. However, in the seniority list of Stock Verifiers dt. 1.10.2004 the petitioner has been shown as senior to Sri Jamaluddin and Sri Rai erroneously as decided by the Railway Board vide letter dt. 6/9.1.2006 . 16.
That in reply to para 4.14 of the petition it is submitted that in DLW cadre of Stock Verifier and Account Asstt are already existing as separate. Further it is submitted that as mentioned in the earlier para
4.13 of this counter reply that only seniority list of Account Asstt. was being maintained since 1985 to 30.9.2004. In such a situation if a person who is senior as Account Asstt. and promoted and posted on the post of Stock Verifier from a later panel then he stands junior to the one who join as Stock Verifier from earlier panel. This is a characteristic feature of a cadre. 17.
That the contents and allegation of the para 4.15 of the petition are denied and it is submitted that the seniority list issued on 01-10-2004 for the post of Stock Verifiers was objected by the respondent No. 4 & 5. In view of the objection raised by respondent No. 4 & 5 with regard to seniority list issued on 01-10-2004 and thereby promotion made as Sr. Stock Verifier, the matter was considered by the Railway Board and Railway Board vide their letter dt. 6/9.1.2006 settled the issue in the light of relevant rules on the subject.
18.
That in reply to para 4.16 of the petition it is submitted that the opportunity of hearing at the time of deciding the issue by the Board was not required under the rules.
19.
That in reply to para 4.17 of the petition it is submitted that since the petitioner asked for deferment of his promotion on the post of Stock Verifier and to join later on, he stands junior to the other two
incumbent on the post of Stock Verifier therefore, he can not be promoted to the higher grade of Sr. Stock Verifier ahead of them as stated in para 211 and Appendix IV of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol-I that posting of Account Asstt. on the post of Stock Verifier is promotion. Therefore, the provisions of para 224 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol-I is applicable in this case. 20.
That the contents of the para 4.18 of the petition are denied and in reply thereto it is submitted that as per provisions contained in para 224 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol-I, the deferment of promotion and posting on the post of Stock Verifier as pleaded by the petitioner is refusal therefore, necessary action has been taken by the Administration in the matter. The Railway Board vide there letter dt. 6/9.1.2006 has decided the issue.
21.
That the contents and allegations made in para 4.19 of the petition are denied and in reply there to the order dt. 9.1.2006 passed by the Railway Board is in accordance with the rules on the subject after considering the full facts of the case.
22.
That in reply to para 4.20 of the petition it is submitted that the Railway Board in compliance of the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal dt.
30.1.2006 passed in O.A. No. 69 of 2006 has considered all the points raised in O.A. by the petitioner in the light of rules and circulars on the subject and disposed the same by a reasoned and speaking order after thorough application of mind. 23.
That the contents of para 4.21 & 4.22 of the application is matter of record and need no comment.
24.
That the contents of para 4.23 of the petition are denied and in reply thereto it is submitted that posting of Account Asstt on the post of Stock Verifier as clarified by the Railway Board vide their letter dt. 6/9.1.2006 and in terms of para 211 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol-I.
25.
That the contents of para 4.24 of the petition are denied and in reply thereto the contents of para 7 of this counter reply are reiterated.
26.
That the contents of para 4.25 of the petition are denied and in reply thereto it is submitted that as per provisions contained in para 211 & Appendix-IV of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual as well as clarified vide Railway Board vide letter dt. 6/9.1.2006, the post of a Stock Verifier is a promotion post therefore, provisions of para 224 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual is applicable in the petitioner's case.
27.
That the contents of para 4.26 of the petition is a matter of record and need no comments.
28.
That the contents of para 4.27 & 4.28 of the petition is denied and in reply thereto it is submitted that during the alleged period i.e. between 1996 to 29-9-2004 no seniority list of Stock Verifier was published as such their was no occasion to raise objection by the two other Stock Verifier with regard to seniority.
29.
That the contents and allegations made in para 4.29 of the petition are denied and in reply thereto it is submitted that the order dt. 9.1.2006 is in accordance with the rules on the subject and has been passed by the Railway Board after due application of mind and considering the full facts of the case.
30.
That the contents of para 4.30 & 4.31 of the petition are matter of record.
31.
That the contents and allegations made in para 4.32 of the petition are denied and in reply thereto it is submitted that to revert the petitioner from the post of Sr. Stock Verifier to the post of Stock Verifier has been taken in accordance with the order passed by the Railway Board contained in their letter dt. 6/9.1.2006.
32.
That the contents of para 4.33 of the petition are denied and in reply
thereto the contents of para 7 of this counter reply are reiterated. 33.
That in reply to para 4.34 of the petition it is submitted that no action for recovery of salary paid to the petitioner from 1.11.2003 as alleged in the para under reply has been initiated keeping in view the interim order dt. 10.7.2006 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
34.
That in view of the facts stated in this counter reply the applicant has neither any prima-facie case nor cause of action to file the present petition and the same is liable to dismissed/ejected.
35.
That contents of para 5 of the claim petition are denied. It is further stated that the grounds raised in the claim petition being devoid of any merit and being based on misconception of facts and law are not legally tenable and are liable to be rejected.
36.
That contents of para 6 of the claim petition need no comments.
37.
That the averments made in para 7 of the claim petition are exclusively in the knowledge of the petitioner and as such the answering-Respondents are not in a position to offer any comments.
38.
That the contents of para 8 of the claim petition are denied. It is further stated that for the facts and circumstances stated above the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the para under reply and the same is liable to be dismissed.
39.
That the contents of para 9 of the claim petition are denied. It is further stated that no case whatsoever is made out for granting interim relief, especially when the main relief and interim relief are substantially the same and the interim order dated 10. 7. 2006 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal is liable to be vacated.
40.
That even otherwise the claim petition lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed with costs to the respondents.
V E R I FI CAT I O N
I, Y.K. Srivastava Dy. Chief Accounts Officer/ G in Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi do hereby verify that contents of paras 1 and 2 of this counter reply are true to my personal knowledge, paras 3 to 35 are verified from record and paras 36 to 39 are base on legal advise which I believe to be true and rest is submissions before this Hon’ble Tribunal. Dated-
......-9-2006
Place:-D.L.W, Varanasi
Signature
Related Documents
Reply From Law Cell
October 2019 56
Reply From Public Greveience Cell
November 2019 50
Reply
November 2019 37
Reply Received From Sepco Iii
December 2019 26
Free From Law
July 2020 20