SHREEDHARAN KALLAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal does not raise by intricate question of law but it exposes very disturbing feature as the Tribunal not only commented upon the judgments rendered by the Kerala High Court in favour of the appellant which had been affirmed by this Court, but went on to hold that they had no binding effect as they appeared to be inconsistent with the Rules. This was against judicial comity and propriety. We do not approve of it.

(2.) The appellant who was appointed as a Ticket Collector in 1950 was promoted as Travelling Ticket Examiner in 1951. He went on deputation as Railway Sectional Officer (RSO) in 1960. There he continued for nearly 12 years. He was reverted to the parent department on 2-2-73. It was challenged by way of two writ petitions. The petitions were allowed by the learned single judge.It was held that the appointment as Railway Sectional Officer was based on selection. The Court further held that the post was permanent and the claim of the Railways that it was a tenure post was not correct. This order was affirmed in appeal by the Division Bench and even the SLP filed in this Court was dismissed. Since the order was not implemented, the appellant approached the High Court, once again, and the Railways were directed to dispose of the representation within two months. But the border was not complied. The appellant approached the High Court for third time. He was called for selection to class II post. The High Court allowed the writ petition and held that in Class II post his seniority was to be reckoned from 1963. This order was challenged by the Railways before the Division Bench. The appeal was dismissed. The SLP filed by the Railways was also dismissed. In 1983 the Railways fixed the seniority of the appellant in Class II from 1963.

(3.) Thus came to an end the first phase of litigation. Now started the second phase. One S. Ramakrishna (Respondent No. 6) who was direct recruit and was not affected by fixation of appellant's seniority filed writ petition in the High Court. It was subsequently transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal. During hearing it transpired that he was not aggrieved person and then another direct appointee S. Chakradharan Rao (Respondent No. 5) filed claim petition which was heard along with earlier petition and the decision in it is subject matter of this appeal.