RAM CHABILA PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner no.1 while he was working as "Kantewala" at Bansdih Road Station of North Eastern Railway in the year 1974, the Railway employees all over India had gone on a general strike demanding bonus and restructuring of the cadre etc. wherein all the railway works including running of trains etc. were totally paralysed w.e.f. 8.5.74 to 28.5.1974. The petitioner no.1 claims that he being a sincere and dedicated employee did not participate in the strike. However, the then Railway Minister issued a policy whereby he rewarded all those Loyal staff/ employees who had worked during strike with certain benefits i.e. an option was given to them either to accept one advance increment or get an appointment for one of their dependents. It was alleged that the then Hon'ble Railway Minister had announced in the Parliament that services of Loyal Workers will not go unrecognized and in pursuance thereof the Railway Board issued letters dated 13.2.74 and 20.5.1974 to give employment to the sons/daughters/dependents of Loyal workers but to no avail. Accordingly, a scheme for implementation of the policy decisions was framed. The Railway Board then issued letters dated 13.2.1974 and 20.5.1974 by which the sons/daughters/dependents of Railway employees who performed duty during the period the railway employees had gone on strike all over India, were directed to be given due consideration in the matter of their appointment.

(3.) According to petitioner no.1 he had performed his duties as "Kantewala" Bansdih Road Station of North Eastern Railway with full devotion, zeal and sincerity despite there being a state of turmoil and violence prevailing during the period of strike between 8.5.1974 to 28.5.1974 under the instructions of the respondents. A certificate in this regard had also been issued by the Assistant Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway Varanasi in his favour in which it was mentioned that petitioner no.1 had not been granted any other benefit viz, 'special increment. He had applied for appointment of his son ( petitioner no.2) at the very inception of the Scheme promulgated by the Railway Board vide his representation dated 2.2.1975.