HARMINDER SINGH Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, NOTHERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated Aug. 28, 1984, passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 3591 of 1978. The controversy which needs to be considered in this letters patent appeal falls in a very narrow compass, namely, as to whether the appellant should have been given notional promotion to the grade of Rs. 250-380(AS) with effect from Jan. 6, 1964, on the plea that his juniors were promoted from that date, or the respondents were justified in giving the notional promotion to the appellant with effect from Feb. 15, 1968. The learned Single Judge in his impugned judgment accepted the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and the relevant portion thereof was reproduced in the first paragraph of the judgment (see page 8). After relying upon the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the learned Single Judge concluded as under:-

(2.) It was then urged by Mr. Bal Ram Gupta, the learned counsel for the apppelant, that the issue as regards the holding of tests in the years 1964, 1966 and 1967, cannot be re-opened in view of the judgment of another learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 1924 of 1976 (see Annexure P-1). The learned counsel urged that, in fact, the learned Single Judge has rejected the argument raised on behalf of the Railway Administration that the appellant was required to pass the requisite test before he could be considered for promotion. He pointedly drew our attention to the portion of the judgment at pages 34 and 35 of the paper-book. We have carefully gone through the said judgment and in our opinion, it is not possible to hold that the learned Single Judge while disposing of Civil Writ Petition No. 1924 of 1976 was ever called upon to consider the tests which were held in the years 1964, 1966 and 1967. This very judgment was considered by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 3591 of 1978 and vide his order dated Feb. 9, 1984, directed the Railway Administration to consider the claim of the appellant for notional promotion. It is only pursuant to this direction that the Railway Administration considered the claim of the appellant and accordingly gave him the notional promotion with effect from Feb. 15, 1968. If the appellant wanted to contend that no such test was required to be passed by the appellant in the years 1964, 1966 and 1967, he ought to have urged before the learned Single Judge as such and accordingly sought a direction that no such test was required to be passed by the appellant and he should have been considered eligible for notional promotion in the year 1964. No such contention was raised before the learned Single Judge while direction was given vide order dated Feb. 9, 1984. At this stage, it was contended that there was no occasion to raise this contention since the Railway Administration disclosed this fact first time in the affidavit which was filed on Aug. 28, 1984. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the affidavit filed on behalf of the Railway Administration was accepted by the learned Single Judge and in the absence of any challenge thereto. It is not possible to accept any contrary contention. The Judgment of R.N. Mittal, J., has now been complied with pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge the impugned order dated August 28, 1984.

(3.) There is no substance in the letters patent appeal. The letters patent appeal to stand dismissed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.