Skip to content


inder Singh Kakar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1182 of 1972
Judge
Reported in1977WLN(UC)246
Appellantinder Singh Kakar
RespondentUnion of India (Uoi) and ors.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
civil services promotion - juniors promoted and given higher grade--held, petitioner be given higher grade & notional promotion from date his seniority was ignored.;it cannot, therefore, be denied that the respondents nos. 5 and s, who were admittedly junior to the petitioner, were promoted to the higher grade of the post of assistant foreman, namely rs. 370,475 with effect from october 12, 1966 in officiating capacity ignoring the seniority of the petitioner. the petitioner was as such entitled to be promoted to the higher grade of rs. 375-475 with effect from october 12, 1966 in preference to the respondents nos. 5 and 6, who were admittedly junior to him, but his claim for such promotion to the higher grade was illegally ignored.;writ allowed - - 5. moreover, it is difficult to..........to such an employee as he did not actually shoulder the duties and responsibilities of the higher grade post till the date when he was actually promoted.4. the petitioner has asserted in the writ petition that the respondents no. 5 and 6 were promoted as assistant foreman in the grade of rs. 370-475 on october 12, 1966 against clear vacancies of non-fortuitous posts, although according to the railway administration the promotion of the respondents nos. 5 and 6 was only by way of local arrangement and as stop-gap arrangement. ho yare, this reply of the respondent is not convincing, because the petitioner has stated in his counter-affidavit that the respondent no. 5, t.r. batra, has received increments in the higher grade with effect from october 12, 1966, the date on which he was so.....
Judgment:

D.P. Gupta, J.

1. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Journeyman in the Railway Workshop, Northen Railway, Jodhpur on December 27, 1953. After receiving promotions to the posts of Assistant Chargeman and Chargeman, the petitioner was further promoted as Officiating Senior Chargeman in the grade of Rs. 335-425 and was provisionally confirmed on the said post with effect from July 10, 1966 by the order of the Senior Personnel Officer (M), dated December 10, 1971 The respondent No. 4 Madhukant was similarly confirmed on the post of Senior Chargemen with effect from 12-7-1966, while the respondent No.5 T.R. Batra and No.6 S.P. Sharma were also provisionally confirmed on the said post of Senior Chargeman with effect from March 3, 1969 & May 3, 1969 respectively by the very same order of Senior Personnel Officer (M), Northern Railway, dated December 10, 1971. Meanwile the petitioner was selected for the post of Assistant Foreman in the grade of Rs. 335-425 and was placed on the provisional panel prepared for the said post by order of the General Manager (P), dated 8-2-1965. A final panel of selected candidates in respect of the posts of Assistant Foreman was prepared by the General Manager (P) vide his order dated July 2, 1965 in which the petitioner was placed at serial No. 4, while Madhukant respondent No. 4 was placed at serial No. 5. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were admittedly placed on the panel for the posts of Assistant Foreman thereafter. All these facts go to show that the respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Senior Chargeman, and their names were entered in the panel for the posts of Assistant Foreman below that of the petitioner.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 T.R. Batra and S.P. Sharma were promoted as Assistant Foreman, in the higher grade of Rs. 370-475 from October 12, 1966 and respondent No. 4 Madhukant was also similarly promoted as Assistant Foreman in the grade of Rs. 370-475 with effect from May 1, 1969, yet the petitioner was posted as Instructor, B.T.C. in the grade of Rs. 335-425 vide order dated May 8, 1967 and continued to hold the aforesaid ex-cadre post until he was retransferred on the post of Assistant Foreman with effect from May 18, 1970. In the meanwhile all the posts of Assistant Foreman in the grade of Rs. 335-425 were up graded to that of 370 475 by the order of the Railway Board dated April 19, 1969 with effect from May 1, 1969.

3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner should be considered to have been promoted as Assistant Foreman in the higher grade of Rs. 370 475 with effect from October 12, 1966, the date when his juniors-respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were promoted and that the petitioner should also be granted all the consequential benefits arising therefore. The reply of the Railway Administration is that the respondents Nos. 5 and 6, T.R. Batra and S.P. Sharma were promoted to the posts of Assistant Foreman in the grade of Rs. 370-475 with effect from October 12, 1966 only by way of local arrangement in fortuitous vacancies and the promotions of these two persons in the higher grade of Rs. 370 475 was merely a stop-gap arrangement, the petitioner could not get any benefit. It is not denied that the petitioner was senior to the respondents No 4, 5 and 6 in the grade of Rs. 335-425 and was all placed higher in the panel for the posts of Assistant Foreman in the same grade of Rs 335-425, which were eventually upgraded to the grade of Rs. 370-475 with effect from May 1, 1969. It is also not in dispute that Madhukant, respondent No. 4, was also promoted in the higher grade of Rs. 370-475 with effect from May 1, 1969. But the case of the Railway Administration is that so far as Madhukant respondent No. 4 is concerned, the position has been rectified subsequently, because the petitioner has been given a notional promotion with effect from 1-5-1969 the date on which respondent No 4, Manhukant was promoted in the grade of Rs. 370-475. They have also relied on the circular issued by the Railway Board on October 16, 1964 (Andfxure Rule 1) w herein the Board has directed that if on account of administrative errors a person was not promoted according to his correct seniority and his juniors were promoted earlier, then the profuse a pay of such a person should be fixed in the higher grade on the stage at which he would have reached in case he would have been promoted at the proper time. The Board has further taken the view that no arrears would become payable to such an employee as he did not actually shoulder the duties and responsibilities of the higher grade post till the date when he was actually promoted.

4. The petitioner has asserted in the writ petition that the respondents No. 5 and 6 were promoted as Assistant Foreman in the grade of Rs. 370-475 on October 12, 1966 against clear vacancies of non-fortuitous posts, although according to the Railway Administration the promotion of the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 was only by way of local arrangement and as stop-gap arrangement. Ho yare, this reply of the respondent is not convincing, because the petitioner has stated in his counter-affidavit that the respondent No. 5, T.R. Batra, has received increments in the higher grade with effect from October 12, 1966, the date on which he was so promoted. It is not disputed that the position of the respondent No 6, S.P. Sharma is in no way different from that of the respondent No.5. Moreover, it is difficult to believe that the so called local an argument or stop gap-arrangement, as the respondents have liked to call the same in order to justify the promotion of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 with effect from October 12, 1966, could have continued for a period of over four years till the petitioner came to be promoted to the higher grade of Rs. 370-475. It cannot, therefore, be denied that the respondents Nos. 5 and 6, who were admittedly junior to the petitioner, were promoted to the higher grade of the post of Assistant Foreman, namely Rs. 370-475 with effect from October 12, 1966 in officiating capacity ignoring the seniority of the petitioner. The petitioner was as such entitled to be promoted to the higher grade of Rs. 371-475 with effect from October 12, 1966 in preference to the respondents Nos. 5 and 6, who were admittedly junior to him, but his claim for such promotion to the higher grade was illegally ignored. In these circumstances, there is no reason to hold that the petitioner should not get benefit of the circular of the Railway Board dated October 16, 1964 (Annexure Rule 1) and he should be given notional promotion in the higher grade of Rs. 370-475 applicable to be posts of Assistant Foreman with effect from October 12, 1966, the date on which his juniors were promoted as Assistant Foreman in the higher grade of Rs. 370-475.

5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to give the petitioner notional promotion on the post of Assistant Foreman together with a proofread fixation in the higher grade of Rs. 370-475 with effect from October 12, 1966. The emoluments payable to the petitioner as Assistant Foreman in the aforesaid grade of Rs. 370-475 shall be prefixed, at the stage the would have received on the notional basis that he would have been pr emoted in the said grade with effect from October 12, 1966. The petitioner shall be entitled to get the benefit of enhanced emoluments from the date when he was actually promoted to the post of Assistant Foreman in the higher grade of Rs. 370 475 with effect from May, 18, 1970 in accordance with the proforma re-fixation, as directed above. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //