UMESH NARAIN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal. The plaintiff brought a suit for a declaration that he is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 150-240 per month on his substantive post and also claimed Rs. 1200 as a difference of his salary withheld by the defendant Union of India. The Additional Munsif decreed the suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to continue in the substantive post of the Claims Tracer in the scale of 140-240 but the claim for recovery of arrears was dismissed. The first appellate court on appeal, set aside the aforesaid decree in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit with costs.

(2.) THE plaintiff's stand is that he was selected as Booking Clerk by the Railway Service Commsission, Allahabad, in the grade 60-150 P.S. in 1956, and was posted as temporary Ticket Collector at Samastipur with effect from 30.10. 1956. Subsequently he held the post of Commercial Clerk at Gorakhpur till 29.10. 1958 and the plaintiff's stand is that he was then promoted to the post of Claims Tracer on 30.10. 1958 and he was posted at Gorakhpur and worked in N.P. Cell to the satisfaction of the authorities and was transferred to Railway Training School, Muzaffarpur N.E.R. to work as Commercial Instructor in the same grade and he worked there, from 12.3.1959 to 26.10. 1961 and he then proceeded on earned leave for a month and reported for duty on 26.11.1961 but received an order of his transfer and posting as Coaching clerk in Varanasi district in the scale of 110-200 in lower grade on 8.12.1961, which amounted to reduction in rank and punishment without notice and enquiry, and the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution have been infringed and this reduction in rank is illegal and void. It was also maintained that the order contravened the standing orders of the Railway Board on this aspect. THE stand as per argument here is that after officiating for 12 months he was to be confirmed in that grade unless it was deferred for further six months further on ground of any inefficiency or warning to improve which is not the case.

(3.) THE stand of the learned counsel for the respondent is that so far as D. O. letter of 1956 or any circular is concerned it does not apply to persons who are appointed purely on adhoc basis and on an express condition that the order is just interim one and for local arrangement. In support of such argument the learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a number of pronouncements. Reliance was placed on the case of Pashupati Narain Sinha v. Union of India, AIR 1971 Patna 18. This case also related to the Railways. It has been held that where the petitioner is temporarily put to officiate in higher grade as a stop-gap measure, no right granted to claim in future over seniors and for higher grade unless selected. Reversion to substantive scale without stigma would not amount to reduction in rank by way of punishment and Article 311(2) would not apply. In this case the principles laid down in AIR 1959 SC 986 and AIR 1958 SC 86 were followed by the Patna High Court. THE very High Court in another Division Bench case, Baijnath v. Union of India reported in 1976 (Part II) SLR 425 held that the Circular issued in this connection and 18 months prohibiting reversion are not applicable to employees appointed temporarily and on ad hoc basis and the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution are also not attracted and the Circular does not have any statutory character. This was also the view of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Divisional Personnel Officer v. M.P. Ranga, 1978 (2) SLR 346. It has been held that eighteen months rule contained in Railway Board Circular of 1956 are required to be adopted and followed only when basis of order of reversion is unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance of work and not otherwise. .