K. Haripal, Member J
1. Applicants are Loco Pilots (Shunter-II) of Thiruchirappilly Division of the Southern Railway. They are natives of Kerala and were recruited by the
Trivandrum Railway Recruitment Board. At that time, even though they opted for getting posting in Trivandrum Division, respondents were preferring
inter-divisional transferees and fresh recruits were made to work in other places like Thiruchirappilly Division.
2. Thus the applicants started working in Thiruchirappilly Division as Loco Pilots in 2015. They were promoted as Senior Assistant Loco Pilots, Loco
Pilot (Shunter) and are presently working as Loco Pilot (Shunter-II) from 23.07.2021 and 13.10.2022 respectively. After the residency period, both of
them submitted applications for inter-divisional transfer to Trivandrum Division on 09.09.2016 and 16.12.2016 respectively. The requests were
registered in Trivandrum Division only in 2019 and now NOCs have been issued to their parent division.
3. According to the applicants, it is the policy of the Railways that such requests for transfers should be dealt with in an organized manner without
giving room for any grievance for the staff members. The general policy of the Railways is to facilitate such transfers. The present grievance of the
applicants is that despite the issue of NOC from Trivandrum Division on 30.01.2024 as evident from Annexure-A2, the applicants are not being
relieved from Thiruchirappilly Division. So, they have sought for a direction to the 3rd respondent, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Thiruchirappilly
Division to relieve the applicants in the light of Annexure-A2 NOC and also to direct him to consider and decide Annexures-A6 and A7
representations given by the applicants.
4. When the application was considered by the Registry, highlighting territorial question, the matter has been referred to the Tribunal for direction
under Rule 17(b) of the CAT Rules of Practice raising following defects:
The relief 8(i) is to direct the 3rd respondent i.e., Sr.Divisional Personnel Officer, Thiruchchirappally Division to relieve the applicants
who are working in Thiruchchirappally Division and to give them inter divisional transferes to Trivandrum division based on the basis of
NOC (Annexure A2) issued by the 4th respondent i.e.Sr.Divisional Personnel Officer, Trivandrum. On perusal of the averments it is seen
that the relief is sought against the 3rd respondent who is not coming under the Jurisdiction of this Bench. It appears that cause of action
either partly or fully is not coming under the Jurisdiction of this Bench. Moreover, A6 & A7 representation are submitted before R3
Sr.D.P.O, Thiruchchirapally. Please clarify whether this OA is maintainable before C.A.T., Ernakulam Bench
5. To this, the learned counsel gave the remarks that the inter-divisional transfer is sought to Trivandrum Division, vacancies are notified in
Trivandrum Division, so that this Tribunal has complete jurisdiction to entertain the O.A. The learned counsel also based on the judgments of the
Hon'ble High Court in OP(CAT) 67/2021 and OP(CAT) 68/2021.
6. Heard Smt. Simla Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri.Anil Prasad, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel
for the respondents, on the maintainability of the application.
7. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel moved M.A.811/2024 seeking amendment to the O.A. seeking incorporation of an
additional ground and change in the reliefs. The M.A. has been opposed on the premise that such a petition will lie only in a pending O.A.
8. Referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that even though both the applicants are
employed in Thiruchirappilly Division, atleast part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal since they are aggrieved by
the non-feasance on the part of the respondents in relieving them from Thiruchirappilly and not admitting in Trivandrum Division. Learned counsel also
pointed out that both were recruited in Trivandrum Division, but had to move out since the policy was to give preference to inter-divisional transferees.
Thus, as fresh hands they moved to Thiruchirappilly Division. According to the learned counsel, from 2016 onwards they were waiting for opportunity
to get inter-divisional transfer, which is being foiled under one pretext or the other. This is against the master circular and the consistent policy of the
Railways.
9. According to Sri.Anil Prasad, the applicants do not have cause of action before this Tribunal, for getting them relieved from Thiruchirappilly
Division, have to move in the Madras Bench of this Tribunal.
10. It is not disputed that applicants being natives of Kerala are aspiring to get inter-divisional transfer to Trivandrum Division. For any such aspirants
getting a transfer at the earliest is very important, because any delay would affect their future prospects and seniority in the new division. It is true that
from 2016 onwards they are trying for transfer, but the 4th respondent had given the green signal only on 30.01.2024. In other words, on receipt of
applications from Thiruchirappilly Division, the 4th respondent had given the nod and issued the NOC only on 30.01.2024. On receipt of the NOC from
the division where transfer is sought the further course is to formally relieve the applicants from the parent division, facilitating them to join the new
division. Here, the role of the 4th respondent has been completed on issue of the NOC. Now, the ball is in the court of respondents 1 to 3, who have to
relieve them. So the cause of action for the applicants lies in Tiruchirappillly Division. For the reason that the applicants are aspiring transfer to
Trivandrum division under this jurisdiction or that they were recruited in Trivandrum Division in 2015 are not good grounds to grant reliefs as prayed
for by the applicants.
11. Going by Rule 6 of the CAT Procedure Rules, Tribunal can have territorial jurisdiction either if the applicants are working within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Tribunal or cause of action in whole or in part have arisen within this jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the applicants could not
convince me that atleast part of the cause of action falls within this jurisdiction.
12. As mentioned earlier, the role of the 4th respondent was to issue NOC, which he has already done by issuing Annexure-A2. Unless and until the
applicants are relieved from the parent division, the 4th respondent has nothing to do with the transfer. To put it in other words, once the NOC is
issued from Trivandrum Division, it is for the Thiruchirappilly Division to relieve them. Non-relieving them, in this backdrop, does not give a cause of
action for the applicants before this Tribunal.
13. The decisions relied on by the applicants have turned upon its own facts. There, the applicants had sought transfer to the divisions in Kerala. They
were working outside the territorial jurisdiction of Kerala. For that reason alone, they do not lose cause of action within this limits. Their request for
NOC had to be processed by Trivandrum and Palakkad Divisions, so that the Hon'ble High Court found that the cases ought to have been entertained
by this Tribunal. Here the applicants do not have any cause of action, in the facts and circumstances of this case, before this Tribunal.
14. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, an application for amendment cannot be entertained unless the Original Application is
entertained by the Tribunal.
15. To sum up, this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain the application. The file shall be returned to the learned counsel for the applicants.
Miscellaneous Application is closed.
(Dated, this the 11th November, 2024)
