SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(SC) 16

M.M.DUTT, S.NATARAJAN
Haribans Misra – Appellant
Versus
Railway Board – Respondent


Advocates:
A.K.SRIVASTAVA, A.SUBBA RAO, C.V.SUBBA RAO, G.L.SANGHI, Kuldip Singh, PRADIP MISHRA, S.DIXIT, SUSHMA SURI

JUDGMENT

DUTT, J :— This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellants whereby they challenged inter alia the validity of R. 328(2) of the Railway Establishment Code as amended by the Railway Board by Advance Correction Slip No. 70.

2. The appellants were appointed Trade Apprentices in Locomotive Component Works (for short LCW) in or about January, 1959. There was a, merger of LCW with Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi, (for short DLW) on Aug. 1, 1961, as a result of which all the members of the staff of LCW were taken over by DLW. On July, 19, 1962, the appellants were appointed Skilled Artisans after successfully completing a training for three years and a half. The regular channel of promotion to higher posts from the post of Skilled Artisan is in the following order

1. Skilled Artisan.

2. Highly Skilled Grade-II.

3. Highly Skilled Grade- I.

4. Chargeman-C.

5. Chargeman-B.

6. Chargeman-A.

7. Assistant Foreman.

8. Foreman.

3. It is apparent from the above channel of promotion that the next higher post to which the appellants could be promoted was the post of Highly Skilled Grade-II. In Sept. 1963, th
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top