LAWS(SC)-1976-2-26

S KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY

Decided On February 03, 1976
S.KRISHNAMURTHY Appellant
V/S
GENERAL MANAGER,SOUTHERN RAILWAY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An unfortunate administrative error, which was discovered long after, has led to an avoidable writ petition, writ appeal and an appeal to this Court necessarily involving a considerable period of litigation and considerable expense. We have heard both sides at great length and have followed the points of the petitioner which appealed to the learned single Judge of the High Court and of the respondent which appealed to the Division Bench which up-turned the judgment of the learned single Judge. We tentatively indicated what struck us as the correct and just conclusion. Counsel on both sides feel that the conclusion we have reached and which will be presently set down is manifestly fair in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) The appellant joined the Southern Railway as a clerk way back in October 1948 and was confirmed as train clerk on April 1, 1949. He worked his way up and became a wagon chaser in an ex cadre post. Thereafter, he was entitled to become Assistant Yard Master but, for reasons which we need not go into, be continued as wagon chaser. The promotion post for Assistant Yard Master is that of traffic inspector. Unfortunately, the appellant was not considered for that post although others similarly situated like him were absorbed as traffic inspectors. The Railway Administration discovered the injustice and set right the error of not treating the appellant as an Assistant Yard Master by its order dated November 10, 1965; but by this time others had been absorbed as traffic inspectors and the appellant was not. His representation proving unsuccessful, he moved the High Court under Art. 226 for the relief of being treated as traffic inspector with effect from 1st January, 1959 when those others similarly situated were so absorbed. The conflicting fortunes of the case have already been indicated and all that we need say is that in the light of the order of the Railway Administration dated November 10, 1965, there has been an injustice inflicted on the appellant.

(3.) On the strength of the policy decision taken on December 31, 1958 the appellant was eligible to be absorbed as traffic inspector like his confrere but was not. Moreover, he had actually worked as Assistant Yard Master for some time. In the circumstances, he was entitled to be taken into the cadre of traffic inspector. We cannot put the clock back for all purposes and treat him as having been notionally appointed as traffic inspector with effect from January 1, 1959. All that we can do, in conformity with his right and in the justice of the case is to direct the respondent to appoint him on which he came to the High Court with his writ petition, viz., December 20, 1967. Those who were promoted earlier might be adversely affected if we direct the appellant's appointment as traffic inspector with effect from an earlier date. We desist from doing so. However, we categorically direct that the Railway Administration shall appoint the appellant as traffic inspector with effect from December 20, 1967.