UNION OF INDIA Vs. GIRJA SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the Union of India representing the North Eastern Railway Administration. The respondent was the plaintiff in the suit giving rise to the appeal. He was employed as a senior telephone operator at Chapra Junction Station when the plaint was verified on 13th January, 1971, the suit having been filed on the 2nd February, 1971. The relief claimed in the suit is for a decree of injunction ordering the defendant 'to put the plaintiff's name at the top of the Seniority List of Senior Telephone Opperators 130-300 as on 1.5.1969 in List No. A/N/55 II dated 30.10.1969 prepared by the Divisional Superintendent, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi and allow the plaintiff consequential promotions and increments in pay with retrospective effect'. The suit was dismissed with costs by the court of the III. Additional Munsif, Gorakhpur. But the lower appellate court has decreed the suit for injunction obviously in the terms of the relief claimed in the plaint, quoted hereinabove. Without even applying its mind to the question whether an injunction in those term should be granted by civil court, which has no supervisory or appellate jurisdiction over the administrative acts of the Government, but it is concerned only with the enforcement of the constitu­tion and the laws within the limits of its jurisdiction in a dispute of civil nature which is brought before it.

(2.) ON the issues which arose on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court found, (1) that the plaintiffs seniority shall be fixed in accordance with circular No. F/3/(P) 7773 dated 22.12.49 pa5sed by the General Manager Re-settlement (ii) that 'according to rule 6 of Rules for determining the Seniority of non-Gazetted Staff, given personal Branch Gazette of N. E. Railway, the seniority shall be fixed from the date of entry in the grade' that 'In the instant case the plaintiff entered in the grade 130-300 on 1. 10.62 while three others, placed above him, entered in that grade on 1.4.56 and 14.12.59 respectively, 'and accordingly,' the plaintiff has been correctly placed at serial no. 4 below to P. B. Singh, S. B. Saran and Hira lal Srivastava, in the seniority list Ex. 24'., and was not entitled to be placed at the top in the seniority list in question (iii) that the suit was barred by time (iv) that the suit was barred by estoppel and acquiescence; (v) that the court had the jurisdiction to decide the question about the plaintiff's right to office on the basis of seniority and (vii) that the suit as not barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as the plaintiff had not claimed a mere declaration but had also claimed consequential relief.

(3.) THE first question so raised by the lower appellate court was answered by saying that 'the plaintiff was entitled to get the seniority from the date of his appointment in the Food grains Department i.e. with effect from 24.10.1944." and hence the plaintiff was entitled to seniority in the higher grade in the seniority list on. A/N/55/2 dated 30.10.1969 as on 1.5.69 the date '1.5.59' appears to be a mistake for 1.5.69 which was the date with reference to which the seniority list dated 30.10.69, Ex. 24, appear to have been finalised in the scale of Rs. 130-330 over and above P.B. Singh C.B. Saran and Hira lal for the post of Senior Telephone Operator, and the second question by saying that the plaintiff having made representations and moved the proper authorities at all stages 'it was a case of continuing cause of action' and 'not a case where relief could be declined on account of laches and delay and that, therefore, the suit was not barred by time.