DAYANAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in this Rule has impeached a charge sheet and the second show cause notice in Annexures "D" and "G" respectively.

(2.) It has been stated that he is a permanent employee of the South Eastern Railway and at the material time he was employed as Chargeman Grade "B", at the Kharagpur Railway Workshop. He has further stated to have been initially appointed on January 18, 1941 as a Trade Apprentice and on completion of 5 years apprenticeship, he was confirmed as skilled worker on January 18, 1946 and thereafter confirmed as a Dye Sinker on July 1, 1946. The fact of the petitioner's appointment as a Trade apprentice and thereafter his absorption and subsequent promotion and confirmation has of course been admitted by the answering Respondents and in their affidavit- in opposition. But they have denied the dates as mentioned by the petitioner.

(3.) It further appears from the evidence as disclosed in the proceeding that prior to 1955, the petitioner officiated as Mistry in the Sinking Section in a temporary vacancy according to existing channel of promotion, for a short period and although he was empanelled as Mistry Dye Sinking section in 1950, he was not promoted on or before July 1, 1955 and on the basis of Circular dated July 28, 1955 (Annexure 'R' to the affidant-in-opposition), whereby it was laid down that any Mistry who had been promoted on or after July 1, 1955 on the basis of empanelment by Junior Selection Boards as also those whose names were on the panel formed prior to the said date should be called to appear in the Departmental test to be held afresh and as such the earlier panel formed before July 1, 1955 had lapsed. The petitioner has of course contended that in recognition of his merit and efficiency, he was promoted as an officiating Mistry during the period of April 4, 1951 to May 20, 1951 and thereafter, with effect from January 19, 1953, he was promoted as a highly skilled worker Grade II. The contentions about the selection of the petitioner as Chargeman grade "C" has been admitted by the Respondents. But they have denied the circumstances as alleged by him. The Respondents have stated that on being empanelled as Chargeman Grade "C", Dye Sinking Section in 1956, he was promoted against a leave vacancy for a temporary period from December 28, 1959 to January 21, 1960. Then again with effect from June 27, 1960, he was promoted to Chargeman Grade "C" (Dye Sinking Section) according to his channel of promotion and in his turn, in the vacancy caused by another employee. But on reinstatement of the said employee in service under orders of the competent authority, he had to vacate the post on June 3, 1962. He was however, put to officiate as Junior Instructor/Chargeman "C" against ex-cadre post in the Basic Training Centre and Production Central Organisation from June 4, 1962 and March 14, 1963 respectively. It has been stated that the said officiating service against ex.cadre post had no bearing to the seniority in tha present cadre. The petitioner was however transferred to Production Central Organisation as Chargeman "C" with effect from February 6, 1963 and he worked there upto March 14, 1963 and was reverted on March 15, 1963 to officiate as Mistry in Production Central Organisation. It has of course been stated that as the petitioner failed in the Departmental test for Mistry in the said Production Central Organisation, he was retransferred to his parent shop of Tool Room, Dye Sinking Section, where he was posted as Highly Skilled Grade II with effect from May 27, 1964. It has also been mentioned that the petitioner had to be reverted to the said Highly Skilled Grade as according to the revised channel of promotion, with effect from 1955 there was no post of Mistry in Dye Sinking Section and the post of Chargeman "C" in the said Section had to be filled up with the employee who was reinstated.