HARKANT HIRALAL VOHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal representatives of the deceased-appellant are prosecuting this appeal. In this judgment, wherever the word 'appellant' is used, it will mean the deceased-appellant.

(2.) THE appellant was aggrieved by the Order dated 1-3-82 which denied the benefit of Railway Board's Letter No. (ES)-61-CC-176, dated 9-8-61 under which he was to be granted four advance increments from 1-5-61. THE appellant joined the then B.B. and C.I. Railway Company as a Clerk in the grade of Rs. 55-130. After the taking over of the said Railway Company by the Central Government on 1/01/1942, the appellant was confirmed as a Clerk by the General Manager, Western Railway, on 12-3-43. After crossing the efficiency bar test in 1955, he was promoted and confirmed as a Senior Clerk in the Grade of Rs. 80-220. Subsequently, he was confirmed as Clerk Grade-I w.e.f. 1-4-56 in the pay-scale of Rs. 130-300. Some time in August, 1958, he was transferred from the Mechanical Department to the Accounts Department in the interest of Railway Administration.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant invited our attention to a number of documents to show that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Railway Board's Letter dated 9-8-61. One such document was paragraph 644 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. It is the further case of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal, by mentioning only Clause (a) of Pargraph 644, rejected the claim of the appellant without referring to clause (b) of the same paragraph, which is relevant for his claim. He also invited our attention to the seniority list of the category of 'CGIS', which, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, exempted the appellant from appearing in the Appendix-IIA examination. He also referred to two other documents dated 22-7-59 and 23-11-60 to further support his contention that the appellant was exempted from appearing in the Appendix-IIA examination. In the light of the documents brought to the notice of this Court, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of the Tribunal has to be set aside and the relief prayed for has to be granted.