Skip to content


Ugam Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 245 of 1977
Judge
Reported in1977WLN(UC)314
AppellantUgam Chand
RespondentUnion of India (Uoi)
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredGeneral Manager v. A.V.R. Siddhanti
Excerpt:
civil services - seniority petitioner neither confirmed nor promoted in substantive capacity--held, ad hoc promotion creates no rights.;he was neither confirmed on the post of a.p.i., or a.w.l.i. nor he was promoted on any of the aforesaid posts in a substantive capacity. the petitioner was promoted only an ad hoc capacity merely as a local an argument and no right was created in favour of the petitioner on account of such ad hoc promotion to the higher post. as the respondent no. 4 has now been declared senior to the petitioner in accordance with the decision of their lordships of the supreme court in siddhanti's case, the petitioner can have no grievance.;writ dismissed - - khandelwal, law assistant northern railway, jodhpur dated august 10, 1977 clearly states that the respondent no......in response there to that the respondent no. 4 was employed initially in the erstwhile grain shop department of the northern railway with; effect from november 14, 1944 and then he was promoted as a clerk in the said grain shop department from may 1, 1945 subsequently the respondent no. 4 was absorbed in the personnel branch on the abolition of the former grain shop department and was thereafter confirmed as a senior clerk in the personnel branch with effect from december 9, 1968. the earlier seniority list which was issued on may 18, 1970 showed the petitioner as senior on the ground that the petitioner was confirmed as a senior clerk with effect from november 6, 1963, while the respondent no. 4 was confirmed on that post with effect from december 9, 1968 although the petitioner.....
Judgment:

D.P. Gupta, J.

1. The petitioner has submitted an application for amendment of the writ petition under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application is allowed.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were heard on the basis of the allegations made in the writ petition as amended.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he was shown as senior to the respondent No. 4 in earlier seniority list of clerks working; in the Personnel Branch of the Northern Railway which was issued on May 18, 1970 and on the basis of which the petitioner was promoted in an officiating capacity as A.W.L.I. by the order of the Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Jodhpur dated 5/13-12-1973 and thereafter by the order dated December 31, 1975 he was transferred from that post to the post of API in an officiating capacity. Subsequently by the order of the Divisional Personnel Officer dated June 8, 1977 the petitioner was reverted from the post of officiating API to his substantive post of senior clerk and the respondent No. 1 has been promoted in his place as officiating API on ad hoc basis, pending selection. The grievance of the petitioner is that he should not have been reverted and the respondent No. 4 should not have been promoted in his place because the petitioner was senior to the respondent No. 4 vide seniority list dated May 18, 1970.

4. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents and they have stated in response there to that the respondent No. 4 was employed initially in the erstwhile Grain Shop Department of the Northern Railway with; effect from November 14, 1944 and then he was promoted as a clerk in the said Grain Shop Department from May 1, 1945 Subsequently the respondent No. 4 was absorbed in the Personnel Branch on the abolition of the former Grain Shop Department and was thereafter confirmed as a senior clerk in the Personnel Branch with effect from December 9, 1968. The earlier seniority list which was issued on May 18, 1970 showed the petitioner as senior on the ground that the petitioner was confirmed as a senior clerk with effect from November 6, 1963, while the respondent No. 4 was confirmed on that post with effect from December 9, 1968 although the petitioner was recruited as a clerk on June 24, 1946 while the respondent No. 4 was appointed as a clerk with effect from May 1, 1945.

5. One of the employees of the former Grain Shop Department approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging his seniority vis--vis the employees of the absorbing department & the matter was taken before the Supreme Court by the General Manager, South Central Railway in appeal. From the judgment of the High Court of A.P. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in General Manager v. A.V.R. Siddhanti 1974 (1) SLR 597 have held that the temporary Grain Shop Staff, from whatever source the) were recruited, on their absorption in a regular Department of the Railway became members of the same class or unit governed by the same conditions of service for purposes of their seniority, promotion etc Their Lordship of the Supreme Court, therefore, ordered that the temporary employees of the Ex-Grain Shop Department recruited from the open, market on their absorption in the regular department of the Railway, were entitled to be treated alike with other employees of that department and directed that the seniority of such former Grain Shop employees should be refixed vis-a-vis the employees of the absorbing department, on an actual or notional basis and they should be promoted or considered for promotion as they became due for promotion, according to the refixation of their seniority.

6. It was in pursuance of the aforesaid decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the Railway Administration refixed the seniority of the employees of the Personnel Department after assigning proper place in such seniority list to the former temporary Ex-Grain Shop Staff. A copy of the newly prepared seniority list dated July 22, 1975 has been placed on the record as Annexure 7 and it shows that the petitioner Ugam Chand stands at No. 14 in the seniority list of senior clerks in the Personnel Branch, while the respondent No. 4 is placed at No. 5 in the aforesaid seniority list, which has been prepared on the basis of the date of appointment as a clerk. Of course, there appears some discrepancy as to the date of appointment of respondent No. 4 Brahm Dutt has been shown as November 14, 1944 while in the affidavit filed before me on behalf of the Railway Administration the date of appointment of respondent No. 4 Brahm Dutt as a clerk has been mentioned as May 1, 1945 and on November 14, 1944 Brahm Dutt only appears to have been appointed as a Salesman in the Grain Shop Department. The orders of reversion of the petitioner & the ad hoc promotion of the respondent No. 4 on the post of API (Annex. R1) have been passed by the Divisional Personnel Officer on 6/8 June 1977, as a consequence of the aforesaid seniority list.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends in the first place that the seniority list (Annexure 7) which had been issued on July 22, 1975 is merely provisional and objections have been invited in respect thereof and the petitioner has also submitted his objections.

8. A copy of the objections submitted by the petitioner has also been placed on the record and so far as respondent No. 4 is concerned the objection of the petitioner is that he could be allowed seniority only from the date of his absorption as a clerk in the regular department. The aforesaid objection already stands concluded by the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Siddhanti's case (supra) and therefore there does not appear any serious objection on behalf of the petitioner, so far as he respondent No. 4 is concerned, regarding the fixation of their inter se seniority. Then the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued on the basis of the circular letter issued by the Railway Board on February 1, 1975 as a consequence of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Siddhanti's case (supra) that the petitioner should not have been reverted. The Railway Board has given directions by their letter dated February 1, 1975 regarding the re-fixation of seniority of the ex-grain shop-staff in pursuance of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sidanti's case and has ordered that temporary staff directly recruited to the Ex. Grain Shop Department should be assigned seniority as they would have got if they had been absorbed in the Absorbing Department from the very beginning of their service & that such revised, seniority should be readjusted from retrospective effect. However, it has been directed by the Rly. Board that promotions of the staff in the absorbing department already made to higher grades (selection or non selection) on the basis of the previously determined seniority should not be disturbed and the staff that may now be due for promotion to higher grades on the basis of reversed seniority should be promoted against future vacancies only and chat confirmed personnel should not be deconfirmed, but those, who become senior to them according to the readjusted seniority should be confirmed against next available vacancies. Considerable emphasis has been laid on the contents of para (b) of the aforesaid circular of the Rly. Board. However, it may be observed that the Sub-paras (ii) and (iii) of para (b) of the circular of the Railway Board dated February 1, 1975 have no application to the case of the petitioner as he was neither confirmed on the post of API or AWLI nor he was promoted on any of the aforesaid posts in a substantive capacity. The petitioner was promoted only in an ad hoc capacity merely as a local arrangement and no right was cheated in favour of the petitioner on account of such ad hoc promotion to the higher post. As the respondent No. 4 has now been declared senior to the petitioner, in accordance with the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Siddhanti's case, the petitioner can have no grievance if the respondent No. 4 is promoted to the higher post and the petitioner is reverted to his substantive post.

9. The petitioner has sought to add by way of amendment in the writ petition that the respondent No. 4 was appointed as Accounts Clerk in the erstwhile Grain Shop Department. The affidavit filed by N.K. Khandelwal, Law Assistant Northern Railway, Jodhpur dated August 10, 1977 clearly states that the respondent No. 4 was promoted as clerk from May 1, 1945 in the Grain Shop Department and there in no reason not to accept the aforesaid affidavit filed on behalf of the Railway Administration. It has also been submitted no behalf of the petitioner that the respondent No. 4 was absorbed as a on temporary clerk in the office of the Controller of Stores. It might be that the respondent No. 4 might have traveled to the Personnel Department through the office of the Controller of Stores, while coming from the erstwhile Grain Shop Department, but there is nothing to show that he was permanently absorbed in the office of the Controller of Stores. The seniority list dated May 18, 1970 (Annexure 3) produced by the petitioner himself shows that the respondent No. 4 was observed as a senior clerk in the Personnel Department. This contention, therefore, also fails.

10. There is no substance in this writ petition, and the same it dismissed.


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