S.K.MAZUMDAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is projected against the letter No. E/1565 dated 6-11-1976 issued by the Divisional Superintendent, N. V. Railway, Tinsukia refusing to court the services of the petitioner prior to 8-7-1966 towards special contribution to Provident Fund/ pensionary benefits as well as the Office Order No. E/1565 dated 11-5-1972 issued by the Divisional Superintendent, Tinsukia by which he was denied the right of reinstatement benefits fully on the plea of limitation.

(2.) The facts leading to the present application can be narrated in a very narrow compass. The petitioner while serving as Coaching Clerk at Tinsukia, was served with a notice of suspension on 25-11-56 and charges were brought against him; but after receipt of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Administration did not proceed further thereunder but invoked Rule 148 of the Railway Establishment volume 1 and the General Manager, N. F. Railway terminated his service by order dated 27-11-57. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed a Title Suit before the Munsiff, Dibrugarh and the said suit was registered as T. S. No. 178 of 1959 for a declaration that the termination of his service was illegal ultra vires and void. The suit was dismissed by the learned Munsiff against which he preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Court but without success. The petitioner being undaunted by the failure in the two-tier Courts, preferred a second appeal in this Court which was registered as Second Appeal No. 194 of 1962. This Court by judgment and order dated 17-6-65 allowed the appeal. The judgment and order reads as follows :

(3.) Although a number of contentions have been raised in the petition, Mr. S. K. Sen learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has confined himself only to the following two contentions. The other contentions raised in the petition have not been pressed by the learned counsel. The first contention of the learned counsel is that the non-payment of the full salary from the date of suspension on 25-11-56 to 7-7-66 is arbitrary and without any authority of law. The second contention of the learned counsel is that because of his failure to deposit the balance of the Provident Fund and Special Contribution to Provident Fund as per instalment fixed by the General Manager, his previous service i. e. the service prior to his date of reinstatement on 8-7-66 towards special contribution to Provident Fund/Pensionary Benefit has been forfeited in terms of R. 1316 of the Railway Establishment Code. This action is clearly in complete violation of all canons of justice and fair play.