LAWS(ORI)-1974-6-22

RABINARAYAN KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Decided On June 10, 1974
RABINARAYAN KUMAR Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined as a Khalasi under the Mistry-in-charge in the Divisional Engineering Workshop at Cuttack with effect from 5-12-1970. He alleges that he had already put in 208 working days as a casual labourer in two spans between 27-3-1970 and 23-8-1970 as also 31-8-1970 and 23-10-1970. On 2-7-1971, on completion of continuous employment for six months as casual labourer, the petitioner claims to have acquired temporary status. The Assistant Engineer (1), Cuttack, of the South Eastern Railway communicated the following order to the petitioner :

(2.) In the counter-affidavit given by the Assistant Engineer (opposite party No. 4), it is stated that the petitioner had not put in continuous service of more than 150 days as alleged by him prior to 23-10-1970 as that employment was in different establishments. The petitioner had never become a temporary Railway servant by virtue of Rule 2501 of Chapter XV of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual but became entitled to certain benefits of a temporary Railway servant. It is claimed that the list had been published in terms of Rule 77 of the Rules. The final seniority list showed the petitioner to be the junior- most. The opposite parties 5, 6 and 7 are senior to the petitioner. The other two persons named in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the writ application having not been impleaded in this writ application, the petitioner's claim as against them cannot be considered. As a fact, it is contended that those two persons are senior to the petitioner. In a rejoinder filed by the petitioner, he claimed that the seniority list prepared in this case was not in accordance with the decision of the Patna High Court referred to above and since the Railway Board had accepted the said decision of the Court and had required compliance of the ratio indicated therein, the list prepared by the opposite parties is liable to be quashed. Consequently the petitioner's retrenchment has also to be vacated.

(3.) Rule 77 of the Rules provides: