SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, C.J.I. AND A.N. RAY, D.G. PALEKAR, M.H. BEG AND S.N. DWIVEDI, JJ.
Shiv Singh, Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 29 of 1970, D/- 17-11-1971.
Advocates appeared
M/s. Hardev Singh and S. N. Choudhury, Advocates, for Petitioner; M/s. G. Das and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates, for Respondents.
Constitution of indai,1950 – Article 32 - Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance, 1968 – Section 3 – Affidavit - Promotion - Court adjourned further hearing of petition and directed respondents to file a further affidavit with respect to certain matters - Respondents have now filed an affidavit - Petitioner has filed an affidavit in reply and respondents have also filed a rejoinder affidavit - There was reorganisation of the aforesaid two Divisions, and a new Division was created - New Division was called Telegraph Engineering Division - On the eve of the aforesaid reorganisation and establishment of a new Division eleven other respondents were working as Linesmen within the area which became newly created Telegraph Engineering Division – Held, but this order was ineffective on account of Office Memorandum of Ministry of Home Affairs, issued - Office Memorandum provided that adverse entry in the character roll of an employee who took part in the strike would be taken into consideration for promotion or confirmation - All employees who were on unauthorised absence would suffer the consequences of strike for five years - Accordingly, petitioner cannot rely on the order of the Director General - It is admitted by Divisional Engineer Jullundur East that petitioner was not considered for promotion as Sub-Inspector on account of the aforesaid directive of Ministry of Home Affairs - Plea of petitioner that he has been reverted mala fide on account of his participation in the strike is clearly untenable - There is no mala fide - Order cancelling his selection was passed one month before the strike - Divisional Engineer was bound to follow directive of Ministry of Home Affairs and hold a fresh selection, according to it - There is no force in the petition and accordingly it is dismissed - Petition dismissed.
Judgment
DWIVEDI, J. :- It is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner, Shiv Singh, challenges the order of the Divisional Engineer Telegraphs East Division Jullundur, the third respondent, dated July 7, 1969 and prays for his confirmation to the post of the Sub-Inspector in the scale of Rs. 105-155.
2. This case was first heard on September 20, 1972. The Court adjourned the further hearing of the petition and directed the respondents to file a further affidavit with respect to certain matters. The respondents have now filed an affidavit. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in reply and the respondents have also filed a rejoinder affidavit.
3. Facts of the case are now abundantly clear. At one time there were two Divisions, called the Jullundur East and Jullundur West Telegraphs Engineering Divisions, Jullundur East Telegraph Engineering Division will hereinafter be called as Jullundur East. The petitioner was employed as a Linesman in Jullundur East in 1954. On November 7, 1966 there was reorganisation of the aforesaid two Divisions, and a new Division was created. The new Division was called the Ferozepur Telegraph Engineering Division. On the eve of the aforesaid reorganisation and establishment of a new Division. Kamta Prasad and eleven other respondents were working as Linesmen within the area which became the newly created Ferozpur Telegraph Engineering Division. They opted for Jullundur East. But they could not be posted in Jullundur East for want of vacancies.
4. The petitioner along with certain other linesmen was selection for the post of Sub-Inspector by the Divisional Engineer Telegraphs Jullundur East on 13-6-1967. He was appointed as Sub-Inspector with effect from June 16, 1967. A similar selection for the post of Sub-Inspector was, it appears, held in the Jullundur Telegraph Engineering Division. But Kamta Prasad and others were considered for promotion neither there nor in Jullundur East. The Circle Secretary. All India Telegraph Engineering Employees Union and Linesmen Staff and Class III Union, Jullundur Branch complained to the Post Master General, Punjab Circle, by letter, dated, May 28, 1968 that the Divisional Engineer Telegraph Jullundur East had not considered the optees for appointment as Sub-Inspectors. The Post Master General made an enquiry about the relevant facts on July 8, 1968. The enquiry revealed that the optees had not been considered in both Divisions. Consequently, on August 6, 1968 the Director of Telegraphs passed an order cancelling the selection of the petitioner and others. He further directed that the aforesaid optees should also be considered for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector. The order regarding cancellation of the selection was issued by the office of the Post Master General on August 20, 1968.
5. On September 19, 1968 there was a general strike in the Postal Department. The petitioner admittedly participated in the general strike. On July 5, 1969 Kamta Prasad and other respondents optees were selected as Sub-Inspectors. The petitioner and certain other persons who had participated in the strike were not selected. On July 7, 1969 the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs Jullundur East approved the aforesaid selection. Pursuant to this approval, the petitioner was sent back to his substantive post of linesman.
6. Two arguments have been advanced on behalf of the petitioner; one, Kamta Prasad and other respondents optees were not eligible for appointment as Sub-Inspectors in Jullundur East; two, the petitioner had been reverted mala fide on account of his participation in the strike.
7. As regards the first argument, reliance is placed on the words "in the Division" in R. 464 of the Posts and Telegraphs Manual, Vol. IV. The main part of Rule 464 provides that vacancies in the grade of Sub-Inspectors should be filled from the grade of "linesmen in the Division". The argument is that the respondents optees were actually working in the Ferozepur Engineering
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.