SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I., R.S. BACHAWAT, C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, K.S. HEGDE, AND A.N. GROVER JJ .
1. B. S. Vodera (In W. P. No. 96 of 1967)
2. G.S. Chaggar (In W.P. No. 165 of 1967) Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos. 96 and 165 of 1967 D/- 27-3-1968.
Advocates Appeared
M/s. S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, Advocates of M/s. K. L. Mehta and Co., for Petitioner (In W. P. No. 96 of 1967); Mr. A. K. Sen, Senior Advocate (Mr. A. P. Chatterji, Advocate, and Mr. M. M. Kshatriya, Advocate of M/s. Kshatriya and Chatterjee, with him), for Petitioner (In W. P. No. 165 of 1967); Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General for India an Dr. V. A. Seyid Muhammad, Senior Advocate (Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate, with them), for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (In both the Petitions), Mr. B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocate (for Nos. 3, 6 to 9, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, 26, 29, 30, 31, 36, 39 to 45, 47, 50, 53 to 55, 58, 61, 64, 66, 69, 76, 77, 81, 82, 87, 91, 94, 96, 97, 103 to 105, 108, 123, 136 and 150, for Respondents (In W. P. No. 96 of 1967).
-held, if no Act is made the rules framed by the President or his authorised person will have full effect both prospectively and retrospectively.
Judgement
VAIDIALINGAM, J.: In both these writ petitions, under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek to have quashed, certain orders passed by the 2nd respondent and, in particular, the order dated June 16, 1967, reverting them, as Upper Division Clerks, with effect from June 9, 1967. The Union of India, through the Chairman, Railway Board, and the Secretary, Railway Board are respondents 1 and 2, respectively, in these proceedings. The other respondents are officers, working under the 2nd respondent, who, according to the petitioners, have been given preferential treatment by way of promotion, under the orders, impugned, in these proceedings.
2. At the outset, it may be stated, that the various orders, passed by the 2nd respondent, referred to, by both the petitioners, are one and the same, and therefore, we shall refer to those proceedings, in accordance with the annexure number, given to them, in Writ Petition No. 96 of 1967. Wherever necessary, we shall advert to any separate order, that has been referred to by the petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 165 of 1967.
3. According to the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 96 of 1967, he joined service, on July 16, 1955, as Lower Division Clerk, was promoted, with effect from February 2, 1957, as Upper Division Clerk and further promoted, as Assistant on February 3, 1958. His grievance is that while he was holding the post of such Assistant from 1958, he has been illegally, and without any justification, reverted, as Upper Division Clerk, with effect from June 9, 1967, as per the impugned order, dated June 16, 1967 (Annexure 16). Similarly, according to the Petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 165 of 1967, he joined as a Lower Division Clerk on September 14, 1954, was promoted as Upper Division Clerk, with effect from February 2, 1957 and was further promoted, as Assistant, on February 3, 1958. His grievance is that while he was so holding the post of Assistant, from 1958, he as been illegally, and without any justification, reverted as Upper Division Clerk, with effect from June 9, 1967, as per Annexure 16.
4. According to the Railway Board, these promotions, made of the petitioners, either as Upper Division Clerks, in the first instance, or, later, as Assistants were purely on a temporary and ad hoc basis, pending the framing of the Railway Board s Secretariat Clerical Service (Re-organization) Scheme, which was in contemplation, at the material time. The Scheme (Annexure 4), was actually framed on February 5, 1957, and the Railway Board s secretariat Clerical Service was to be organized, in the manner, set out therein. Under this Scheme, there were to be two grades of service -(i) Grade I-Upper Division Clerk; and (ii) Grade II-Lower Division Clerk The authorised permanent strength of the Service, in Grade I, was fixed at 45, and of Grade II, at 82. The initial constitution of the Service, was to be with effect from December 1, 1954.
5. On March 30, 1963, same of the provisions, contained in Annexure 4, were modified, by Annexure 7. One of the modifications effected under Annexure 7, relating to the manner of filling up of permanent vacancies and temporary vacancies, in Grade I of the Service, and this modification was also to have effect, from the date of the initial constitution of the Service, viz., December 1, 1954.
6. In 1965, a final panel was drawn up, strictly on the basis of the Scheme, for promotion to the Grade of Upper Division Clerks, in which the names of all the Lower Division Clerks were arranged, strictly in accordance with their seniority positions, in that Grade. Accordingly, the names of the petitioners who had been promoted as Officiating Upper Division Clerks, in 1957, were entered, in that panel, in accordance with their inter se seniority as Lower Division Clerks. As the posts of Upper Division Clerks were non-selection posts, so far as promotion quota was concerned, they had to be filled in, on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability and hence a partic
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.