JOKHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit for declaration that the order dated 19-11-71 passed by Town Engineer,Northern Railway removing plaintiff from service was illegal, two questions arise for consideration one, whether plaintiff was a temporary employee and if so whether the order removing him from service was in accordance with rules of the Establishment Code.

(2.) It is not disputed that plaintiff appellant was appointed as a casual labour on 28-8-68. On 17th Nov. 1970 the Town Engineer passed an order Ex. 3 that the following casual labour, who have worked for more than six months as casual labour under IOW(E)GKP are granted time scale of pay...........they will be governed by the rules and conditions applicable to temporary class IV Railway servants. In the list appended to this order appellant was shown at Serial No. 33, and he was given time scale from 29-9-69.

(3.) This sub-rule defines a temporary employee. It excluded a casual labour from it. This by itself is not sufficient. It is not the case of appellant nor have the courts below found that a casual labour is a temporary employee. Paragraph 2501(b)(i) of the Railway Establishment Manual which admittedly applies to appellant provides that a casual labour working as such continuously for six months is entitled to become a temporary employee. The appellant having been appointed on 28-8-68 and having worked continuously for six months was entitled to be treated as temporary employee. This entitlement matured into right when the Town Engineer passed the order on 17-11-70 and granted him time scale with effect from 20-9-69. (sic) Paragraph 2511 of the Manual provides that a casual labour treated as temporary employee is entitled to all rights and privileges admissible to temporary employees. The rights and privileges admissible to such labour also include the benefit of the Discipline and Appeal rules. The contention therefore that appellant was not a temporary employee is devoid of any merit. The finding recorded by the two courts below is well founded in law.