ANANT RAM Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are five connected writ applications by five railway servants against the order of the District Magistrate, Jodhpur, under the Payment of Wages Act (No. 4) of 1936 (hereinafter called the Act), and have been heard together as common points have been raised in them. We shall dispose them off by one judgment.

(2.) It is best to set out the facts of each case briefly, and we shall then indicate common points of law that arise in these cases.

(3.) Case No. 54 is by Anantram. He was in the service of the then Jodhpur Railway. In March, 1951, he was served with a charge-sheet by the then Chief Engineer and was removed from service on 26-3-1951. The order of his removal was set aside on or about 1-4-1953. However, another charge-sheet based on the same charges was framed against him on 29-4-1953. It appears that the earlier order of dismissal was set aside on the ground of defect in procedure, and that was why Anantram was again served with a fresh charge- sheet, on the same charges. On this second charge-sheet, Anantram was punished by stoppage of one increment. This second order was passed on 29-3-1954, and his appeal against that order was rejected on 31-8-1954. The applicant was not given his pay for the period from 27-3-1951, to 7-4-1953 and that period was treated as leave without pay. The applicant made a representation in connection with the withholding of his pay, and thereupon he was informed on 31-9-1954, that the period from 27-3-1951, to 7-4-1953, was treated leave without pay according to the Railway Board's orders, and that as after the institution of fresh proceedings he had been found guilty, there was no case for moving the Railway Board for revising the earlier orders. Thereafter, the applicant applied to the District Magistrate of Jodhpur under Section 15(2) of the Act on 12-10-1954. That application, has been dismissed by the District Magistrate as barred by time, and that is why Anantram has filed this writ application. His case is that the District Magistrate should have considered the documents produced by him, and thereafter decided whether he had sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation prescribed by the proviso to Section 15(2) of the Act.