Union of India & Ors. vs C. Girija & Ors.

HELD: 1.1 The claim of the applicant for inclusion of her name in the panel, which was issued on 09.01.2001 and for the first time was raked up by her, by filing representation on 25.09.2007, i.e., after more than 06 and half years. The claim of inclusion in the panel had become stale by that time and filing of representation will not give any fresh cause of action. Thus, mere fact that representation was replied by Railways on 27.12.2007, a stale claim shall not become a live claim. Both tribunal and High Court did not advert to this important aspect of the matter. Furthermore, after declaration of panel on 09.01.2001, there were further selection under 30% promotion by LDCE quota, in which the applicant participated. In selection held in 2005 she participated and was declared unsuccessful. With regard to her non-inclusion in panel in 2005 selection, she also filed O.A. before the tribunal, which was dismissed. After participating in subsequent selections under 30% quota and being declared unsuccessful, by mere filing representation on 27.09.2007 with regard to selection made in 2001, the delay and laches shall not be wiped out.[Para 16][142-F-H, 143-A-B]

1.2 The applicant was well aware that under 30% LDCE quota, out of 05 vacancies, 04 are unreserved and 01 is reserved, which was circulated by notification dated 14.10.1999. She applied against the said bifurcated vacancies and was interviewed on 08.01.2001, panel of which was declared on 09.01.2001 and promotion was made on the same day. She having participated in the selection for promotion under 30% LDCE quota and the bifurcation of the vacancies being part of the process of selection, it was not open for her to challenge the bifurcation of vacancies into general and reserved after taking a chance to get selected. Thus, tribunal and the High Court ought not to have entertained the stale claim of the applicant. [Paras 17, 18][143-B-C, 146-A-B]

C.Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and Another (2008) 10 SCC 115 : [2008] 14 SCR 634; Union of India and Others v. M.K. Sarkar (2010) 2 SCC 59 : [2009] 16 SCR 249; State of Uttaranchal and

Another v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Others (2013) 12 SCC 179 : [2013] 9 SCR 609; P.S.

Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (1975) 1 SCC

152 : [1975] 2 SCR 356; Ashok Kumar and Another v. State of Bihar and Others (2017) 4 SCC 357 : [2016] 8 SCR 815 – referred to.

2.1 The tribunal and the High Court both observed that any vacancy coming after the relevant period ought not to have been taken. Those observations were in context of vacancy, which arose due to promotion of AB on 03.01.2001. In the affidavit, it was clearly mentioned that assessment of vacancies is limited up to 30.09.1998 and vacancies accrued after 01.10.1998 were taken only for subsequent selection. Thus, it is clear that in computation for vacancies under 30%, no vacancy, which had arisen out of relevant period was taken. Applicant submitted that under 30% both, AB and JS being available, there could not have been 01 further vacancy reserved for SC. In the affidavit, it was mentioned that the roster point from point number 9 to 13 of the roster was for 30% selection. But 9th point having already been consumed by SR, who was selected and empaneled during 1996-97, therefore, the actual point to be consumed should be from point No. 10 to 14. Point No. 14 being reserved for SC, 05 vacancies but 30% quota were distributed accordingly and out of which 01 vacancy was allocated to SC. Thus, there was plausible explanation for determination of vacancies given by the Railways. The explanation with regard to roster point as given by the Railways has not been adverted to by High Court or tribunal. Thus, the explanation by the Railway was a plausible explanation, which was not such as to give a cause for interference by the tribunal and the High Court. Thus, the above ground for interference as given by the tribunal and the High Court is unsustainable. [Para 21][148-F-H, 149-A-B]

2.2 The applicant having retired on 31.05.2015 there was no impediment to compute and pay her retirement benefits without prejudice to the claim of Railways. The delay in payment of retiral benefits has to be compensated by directing payment of interest. Thus, the applicant was entitled for retiral benefits immediately after the date of retirement. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the Writ Petition are directed to determine and pay the retirement benefits to the applicant, if not already paid, within the stipulated period. The applicant is directed to paid interest @ 8% p.a. on retirement benefits after one month of retirement i.e. w.e.f. 01.07.2015, till the payment is made of the retiral benefits. [Paras 22, 23][149-D-F]