INDER SINGH KAKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as a Journeyman in the Railway Workshop, Northen Railway, Jodhpur on December 27, 1953. After receiving promotions to the posts of Assistant Chargeman and Chargeman, the petitioner was further promoted as Officiating Senior Chargeman in the grade of Rs. 335 -425 and was provisionally confirmed on the said post with effect from July 10, 1966 by the order of the Senior Personnel Officer (M), dated December 10, 1971 The respondent No. 4 Madhukant was similarly confirmed on the post of Senior Chargemen with effect from 12 -7 -1966, while the respondent No.5 T.R. Batra and No.6 S.P. Sharma were also provisionally confirmed on the said post of Senior Chargeman with effect from March 3, 1969 and May 3, 1969 respectively by the very same order of Senior Personnel Officer (M), Northern Railway, dated December 10, 1971. Meanwile the petitioner was selected for the post of Assistant Foreman in the grade of Rs. 335 -425 and was placed on the provisional panel prepared for the said post by order of the General Manager (P), dated 8 -2 -1965. A final panel of selected candidates in respect of the posts of Assistant Foreman was prepared by the General Manager (P) vide his order dated July 2, 1965 in which the petitioner was placed at serial No. 4, while Madhukant respondent No. 4 was placed at serial No. 5. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were admittedly placed on the panel for the posts of Assistant Foreman thereafter. All these facts go to show that the respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Senior Chargeman, and their names were entered in the panel for the posts of Assistant Foreman below that of the petitioner.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that although the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 T.R. Batra and S.P. Sharma were promoted as Assistant Foreman, in the higher grade of Rs. 370 -475 from October 12, 1966 and respondent No. 4 Madhukant was also similarly promoted as Assistant Foreman in the grade of Rs. 370 -475 with effect from May 1, 1969, yet the petitioner was posted as Instructor, B.T.C. in the grade of Rs. 335 -425 vide order dated May 8, 1967 and continued to hold the aforesaid ex -cadre post until he was retransferred on the post of Assistant Foreman with effect from May 18, 1970. In the meanwhile all the posts of Assistant Foreman in the grade of Rs. 335 -425 were up graded to that of 370 475 by the order of the Railway Board dated April 19, 1969 with effect from May 1, 1969.

(3.) THE petitioner has asserted in the writ petition that the respondents No. 5 and 6 were promoted as Assistant Foreman in the grade of Rs. 370 -475 on October 12, 1966 against clear vacancies of non -fortuitous posts, although according to the Railway Administration the promotion of the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 was only by way of local arrangement and as stop -gap arrangement. Ho yare, this reply of the respondent is not convincing, because the petitioner has stated in his counter -affidavit that the respondent No. 5, T.R. Batra, has received increments in the higher grade with effect from October 12, 1966, the date on which he was so promoted. It is not disputed that the position of the respondent No 6, S.P. Sharma is in no way different from that of the respondent No.5. Moreover, it is difficult to believe that the so called local an argument or stop gap -arrangement, as the respondents have liked to call the same in order to justify the promotion of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 with effect from October 12, 1966, could have continued for a period of over four years till the petitioner came to be promoted to the higher grade of Rs. 370 -475. It cannot, therefore, be denied that the respondents Nos. 5 and 6, who were admittedly junior to the petitioner, were promoted to the higher grade of the post of Assistant Foreman, namely Rs. 370 -475 with effect from October 12, 1966 in officiating capacity ignoring the seniority of the petitioner. The petitioner was as such entitled to be promoted to the higher grade of Rs. 371 -475 with effect from October 12, 1966 in preference to the respondents Nos. 5 and 6, who were admittedly junior to him, but his claim for such promotion to the higher grade was illegally ignored. In these circumstances, there is no reason to hold that the petitioner should not get benefit of the circular of the Railway Board dated October 16, 1964 (Annexure Rule 1) and he should be given notional promotion in the higher grade of Rs. 370 -475 applicable to be posts of Assistant Foreman with effect from October 12, 1966, the date on which his juniors were promoted as Assistant Foreman in the higher grade of Rs. 370 -475.