Monday, September 6, 2010

How safety is compromised

Jaipal Singh, loco pilot of Prayagraj Express, had been on the driver’s seat for 13 hours 35 minutes when his engine rammed into the stationary Gorakhdham Express on January 2, 2010 near Kanpur, causing five deaths and injuring 40. Ram Prakash, loco pilot of the Kalindi Express had been on the wheels for more than 10 hours when his train crashed into the Shram Shakti Express near Tundla on January 16, 2010 – killing three and hurting 12.

This is among the worst kept secrets of the Indian Railways: “Driver’s fatigue” is a major factor to the rail accidents.

Of the 126 train accidents that have occurred between May 2009 and July 2010 (accounting for 273 deaths), as many as 82 (65 per cent) were due to the failure of railway staff.

Against the 7 hour 25 minute Hours of Employment Regulation (HOER), train drivers are averaging 10 hours of continuous driving.

Rules do provide for rest periods, but remain silent about when the first break becomes applicable, or whether these are compulsory? Or whether there is a limit to the night duty hours?

Official documents reveal loco pilots of the Rajdhani train were on night running duties for an alarming 75 per cent of their allotted duty hours in the Allahabad division last month.

“The scenario is quite the same throughout the country. The HOER is not implemented and rest periods are usually denied. Duty hours of drivers have never been viewed as criteria for safety by the Indian Railways”, a senior loco pilot said.

Over past years, the period of initial training for drivers has been reduced from 75 to 39 weeks and the refresher training (conducted every three years) period was slashed from 40 to 21 and the present 18 days.

One of the five stages of driving training has been yanked off the training schedule, while just 16 simulators are available with the Railways — with majority of drivers not having had a chance yet to view these machines.

Railway Ministry spokesman Anil Kumar Saxena said the training modules had been revised to impart “traction specific training”.

Referring to the Indian Railways Loco Runningmen Organisation’s (IRLRO’s) allegations that unqualified persons had been selected as loco inspectors, he said “this is not true”.

However, inquiries by the HT reveal that around 30 loco inspectors — who monitor the skills of the loco pilots — do not have the mandatory three years of driving experience themselves.

At the electric training school in Ghaziabad, a loco pilot with one-year experience is teaching drivers with 35 years of service.

“Safety management standards are being heavily compromised. The morale of drivers stands shattered”, retired driver/advocate M.R. Sabapati said.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Welcome to new employes

Dear new comers, its the grestest organisation in railways. i welcome to all

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Justice Prevails

Ravichandran, Zonal President AILRSA, South Zone

AILRSA appreciates the LP Sri.S.Gurumurhty/KZJ who relentlessly has taken the fight for justice to ensure safety to the highest level and ultimately appreciated for his stance on the issue.

On 23.08.2006, LP/Goods Sri. S.Gurumurthy was ordered to work Trian No: BCN from KZJ. At Potkapalle station, he came to know that the destination of the train was PandarPavani. As he had no valid LR in that section, he informed the same to the SCOR through DySS/Kolnur and later at Ramagundam and also requested for relief at BPA which was also arranged. But the TLC on duty treated it as his prestige issue, prevented the relief arrangement at BPA and further insisted the LP to work the train to nthe destination despite the fact that the LP had no valid LR in the Manikgarh-PandarPavani section. The LP refused and hence the train was detained at Manikgarh.

SrDEE/SC placed the LP under suspension from 23.08.2006 for his refusal to work the train. After 5 days, the suspension was revoked on 28.08.2006.
On 29.08.2006, ADEE/SC issued a charge memo alleging that the LP should have worked the train up to the destination since the ALP on duty was having valid LR on that section.
The LP asserted in his reply to the charge memo that he did not violate any rule but adhered to the rules and the adamant behavior of the authorities is the root cause of the detention.
The Disciplinary Authority however found him guilty of the charge and imposed a punishment of withholding increment for 35 months.
The LP appealed to SrDEE/SC.
The Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal and confirmed the punishment.
The LP preferred revision to ADRM.
The Revisional Authority dismissed the same.

The LP filed a case in CAT/Hyderabad. The Administration in their reply has admitted that i) the LP was not informed about the destination while signing ON ii) the LP has not worked train in the Manikgarh-PandarPavani section for over 3 months prior to 23.08.2006.
But they pleaded that the LP could have worked the train with the assistance of the ALP who had valid LR and also asserted that the ALP comes under the definition of qualified railway servant referred to in GR 3.78.4.
The LP filed a rejoinder in which he denied the alleged advice given by TLC to obtain the services of ALP and even it is given, it is not within the ambit of rules and against safety.

The Hon’ble Justice in his judgement has noted that the ALP is not qualified to perform the duties of a LP. He agreed with the contention of the LP through his counsel that the qualified competent railway servant referred to in GR 3.78.4 means another qualified LP having knowledge in the section and not the ALP. Since the driving of a train comes under safety category, the safety rules have to be strictly followed.
Hence, the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority was set aside.

REF: O.A.No.21 OF 2008 S.Gurumurthy vs Union of India dated 14.07.2009.

Thanks to BG Rao LP/M/TPJ and

Required Board Letters Copy

Dear Friends i need copies of the following railway board letters - regarding Reservation in promotion - Treatment of SC/ST candidates promoted on their own merit.

1. 99-E(SCT) 1 /25/13 dated 07/08/2002
2. 99-E(SCT) 1 /25/13 dated 20/06/2003
3. 99-E(SCT) 1 /25/13 dated 06/05/2005

kindly mail me or to this blog

Wednesday, October 28, 2009


The DEC meeting of IRLRO will be held at TPJ at 10.00 hrs on 1st november 2009

Subjects for discussion:

1. Filling up vacancies 2. CWC outcome by BGR & RK 3. Hunger strike programme at NDLS on 8th Dec 2009. 4. Court cases / Pending DAR cases 5. IRLRO stand on safety, recent approach of admin regarding responsibility for accident in mathura case 6. Accounts submission 7. Depot / Divn problems.

Our Leader MRS participates in the programme. You all are invited . Give your suggestions. Discuss our problem.

by M.Thirumurugan. IRLRO / TPJ - mail id -