Skip to content


Jeth Mal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 751 of 1973
Judge
Reported in1977WLN664
AppellantJeth Mal
RespondentUnion of India (Uoi)
Cases ReferredKanhalal v. Union of India and Ors.
Excerpt:
.....that the petitioner had not officiated in accordance with 'his turn' on the panel, on the higher grade selection post, the respondents cannot be allowed now to urge that balwant singh had not officiated till the panel dated june 15, 1970 was scrapped on account of the amalgamation of the trades.;(b) railway establishment manual - para 217(b) petitioner officiating in non fortuitous vacancy on higher grade selection post of chargeman grade a held, he is entitled to benefit of provisions of para 217(b) and should not be required to appear again for fresh selection in combined cadre.;the petitioner should be deemed to have officiated in a non fortuitous vacancy on the higher grade selection post of chargeman grade a on his turn in the panel before august 18, 1971 by virtue of the circular..........august 5, 1977) in that case, it was held that if an employee had worked temporarily on a higher grade selection post, according to his panel position either against leave vacancy or on deputation or temporary transfer of another employee vacating the posts then it should be treated as if such an employee has worked in a non-fortuitous vacancy, for the purposes of the panel specified in para 217 of the manual, by virtue of the circular issued by the railway board on march 9, 1967. as the petitioner had admittedly worked against leave arrangement from february 10, 1971 to september 6, 1971 on the higher grade selection post of chargeman grade a, it should be held, on the basis of the decision in kanhayalal's case, that the petitioner had officiated against non fortuitous vacancy on his.....
Judgment:

D.P. Gupta, J.

1. The question which arises for determination in this writ petition is as to whether the final panel for promotion to the selection post of Chargeman-grade A, in the grade of Rs. 335-425 (AS) in G.B. and C.R. trade date June 15, 1970 should be considered to have operated so far as the petitioner is concerned, in view of the circular issued by the Railway Board dated March 9, 1967 read with para 217 of the Indian Railway Board Establishment Manual (hereinafter called the Manual')

2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, who initially entered in Railway service on April 9, 1941 as Trade Apprentice in the former Jodhpur Railway, after gradual promotions, was holding the post of Chargeman Grade B, in the grade of Rs. 250-380, at the Northern Railway Workshop of Jodhpur at the relevant time. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had officiated on the higher post of Chargeman Grade A, in the grade of 335-425 (AS) from February 10, 1971 to September 6, 1971 in a temporary vacancy. The case of the petitioner is that having worked in a temporary capacity on the higher post of Chargeman Grade A, the petitioner was entitled, by virtue of the provisions of the circular issued by the Railway Board on March 9, 1967 to be considered to have worked against a non-fortuitous vacancy for purposes of para 217 of the Manual and as such, the final panel published on June 15 1970 in respect of the post of Chargeman Grade A should be considered to have become operative, so far as the petitioner was concerned. According to the respondents, the C.B. & C.R. trade was merged with WM trade on 18-8-1971 and the respective panels of the two trades stood cancelled from the crucial date of merger, in respect of the either panel who was not promoted to the selection pests in the respective trades until the date of merger of the aforesaid trades. As the an operated panels in, both the trades stood scrapped on account of the merger of the two trades, according to the respondents the petitioner was rightly called upon to appear at a fresh selection for promotion to the selection post of Chargeman grade A.

3. It is not necessary to discuss the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties in any detail as the matter has been considered at length and stands concluded by the order of this Court in Kanhalal v. Union of India and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1317 of 1972 decided on August 5, 1977) In that case, it was held that if an employee had worked temporarily on a higher grade selection post, according to his panel position either against leave vacancy or on deputation or temporary transfer of another employee vacating the posts then it should be treated as if such an employee has worked in a non-fortuitous vacancy, for the purposes of the panel specified in para 217 of the Manual, by virtue of the circular issued by the Railway Board on March 9, 1967. As the petitioner had admittedly worked against leave arrangement from February 10, 1971 to September 6, 1971 on the higher grade selection post of Chargeman Grade A, it should be held, on the basis of the decision in Kanhayalal's case, that the petitioner had officiated against non fortuitous vacancy on his turn in the panel and as such, the panel dated June 15, 1970 should be considered to have operated, so far as the petitioner is concerned, with the result that the petitioner should not be required to reappear at a subsequent selection for the post of Chargeman Grade A.

4. Mr. Bhansali, learned Counsel for the Railway Administration has now filed on affidavit stating that Balwantsingh, who was placed at No. 3 in the panel dated June 15, 1970 had not been promoted on the post of Chargeman Grade A & as such, the petitioner should not be deemed to have officiated temporarily 'on his turn', according to has panel position, because the petitioner's name was placed at No. 4 in the panel dated June 15 1970 after Balwant Singh. I am not inclined to entertain this contention of the learned Counsel as no such plea was taken in the reply to the writ petition filed by the respondents that the petitioner had not officiated on the higher post of Chargeman Grade A according to his turn in the panel. The petitioner had taken the plea in his writ petition that according to the circular of March 9, 1967, the petitioner should not have been asked to reappear at a subsequent selection for the same post, because he had already officiated against a vacancy in the higher grade selection post, during the currency of the panel. The reply of the respondents to this submission of the petitioner in their written statement was that the aforesaid circular is not applicable because of the amalgamation of the two trades, namely C.B. & C.R. and WM trades, it was necessary to form a fresh panel for the combined trades. It was not the case of the Railway Administration that the petitioner had not officiated on the higher grade selection post on his turn in the panel. It also appears from the writ petition that the petitioner submitted a representation as early as on November 17, 1970, which has been reproduced in para 5 of the writ petition, clearly stating that the three persons senior to him in the panel position namely S.B.Srivastava, Kanhayalal and Balwant singh were officiating as Chargeman Grade A in higher grade of Rs. 335/425 (AS), at Alambagh, Lucknow and at Jodhpur. In reply to this representation, it was stated by the Railway Administration vide their letter on December 16, 1970 that his contention that all his seniors were officiating as Chargeman Grade A was not correct. However, no specific averment was made that the respondent Balwantsingh had not officiated in the higher grade selection post of Chargeman Grade A at any time prior to the crucial date, namely, August 18, 1971 when the two trades were merged into one common trade. It has not been denied by the respondents that the petitioner had officiated for a period of almost seven months on the higher grade selection post of Chargeman Grade A & was even officiating on the said post on the crucial date, namely, 18-8-1971. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was allowed to officiate on the higher post of Chargeman Grade A out of turn, while persons who stood senior to him in the panel dated June 15, 1970 had no such opportunity to officiate on the aforesaid higher post. In the absence of a specific plea on the part of the respondents that the petitioner had not officiated in accordance with 'his turn' on the panel, on the higher grade selection post, the respondents cannot be allowed now to urge that Balwantsingh had not officiated till the panel dated June 15, 1970 was scrapped on account of the amalgamation of the two trades. In my view, the case of the petitioner is fully governed by the ratio of the decision of this Court in Kanhayalal 's case and no distinction worth the name could be made in the case of the petitioner.

5. In the result the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner should be deemed to have officiated in a non-fortuitous vacancy on the higher grade selection post of Chargeman Grade A on his turn in the panel before August 18, 1971 by virtue of the circular of the Railway Board March 9, 1970 and as such, final panel dated June 15, 1970 relating to the post of Chargeman Grade 'A' in C.B. and C.R. trade should to considered to have operated during the currency thereof, so far as the petitioner is concerned. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of para 217(d) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual read with the Railway Board's circular dated March 9, 1967 & the petitioner, therefore, should not be required to appear again for fresh selection in the combined cadre for the post of Chargeman Grade (A). In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their on costs.


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