UNION OF INDIA Vs. LALA JAGANNATH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Railway Board issued a circular dated 17/9/1965 wherein weightage in respect of temporary service rendered by the officers was provided on their permanent absorption in Class I service. The operative part of the circular is as under:

(2.) The question before the High court was whether Lala Jagannath Prasad, respondent in the appeal herein, was entitled to the benefit of the above-quoted circular. The High court answered the question in the affirmative and in favour of the respondent. This appeal by the Railways is against the judgment of that of continuous temporary service in the Railways. The continuous service of the respondent as temporary Assistant Engineer is only with effect from 13/3/1961 and as such he is entitled to weightage in respect of his service counted from 13/3/1961. The respondent is not entitled to weightage for the period of his temporary service from 30/1/1957 to 13/10/1960. There are two periods of temporary service so far as respondent is concerned. He is only entitled to weightage in respect of the latter period that is from 13/3/1961. In our view, the high court fell into patent error in granting weightage to the respondent on the basis of his service from 30/1/1957.

(3.) Mr K. Madhava Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has contended that on fresh appointment the respondent was given an initial start of Rs. 450. 00 in the pay scale of Rs. 400-950, he was directed to be placed at the bottom of the seniority amongst the temporary Assistant Engineers of 1956 batch, he was not placed on probation and was not sent on training. Accordingto him these factors go to show that the break in service was impliedly condoned by the railways. We do not agree. We have been taken through the offer of appointment dated 9/3/1961 which specifically states that the respondent was being given a fresh appointment on the terms and conditions contained in the said offer. In the facts of the present case, it is not possible to hold that the railway authorities intended to condone the break in the service of the respondent at any stage.