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

2008 Supreme(SC) 263

2008(2) Supreme 186
Supreme Court of india
(From Kerala High Court)
S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
L. Parmeswaran — Petitioner
versus
Chief Personal Officer & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 1325 of 2008
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 18227 of 2005]
Decided on : 15-02-2008

important point
As per Railway Rules, ex-cadre employees cannot be permitted to continue beyond the stipulated period and have to be repatriated.

Headnote:(a)Service Law – Conditions of service – Having been appointed in Electrical division and refusing to take the trade test on being posted as diesel mechanic, appellant remained an ex-cadre employee – Therefore he did not derive any right to continue therein – If he is allowed to continue in the ex-cadre post, he will be depriving some employees who are entitled to be promoted to the said post – Such a deprivation from the right of promotion to a duly qualified employee cannot be countenanced. (Para 13 and 15)

       JT 2005 (11) SC 311 – Distinguished.

       (b)Service Law – Appellant might have been recruited as a casual employee but he was brought on the rolls of a regular cadre and he had passed a trade test and as an ex-cadre employee or otherwise he was promoted twice – He had been holding the said post for a period of more than 12 years – Despite the policy decision in 2001 to necessarily repatriate ex-cadre employees to their parent cadre after four years, the appellant was permitted to work for another two years – While upholding the impugned order, appellant given pay protection. (Para 18)

       (2006) 4 SCC 1 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the case:

       1. Appellant was recruited as an unskilled worker. He was a casual workman posted in Electrical Division.

       2.He was promoted from the post of Khalasi Helper in his parent cadre to that of Technician Grade III. He passed a trade test of Technician Grade III, which enabled him to be promoted to the post of Technician Grade-II. On or about 13.02.1989, he was promoted as Diesel Mechanic Grade II. He was further promoted as Diesel Mechanic Grade I with effect from 26.04.1991.

       3.He served in the said post till 7.04.2003 when by reason of the impugned order he was reverted to the post of Technician Grade III in the Electrical Division of the Railway Department.

       4. Questioning the validity of the said order, he filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam which dismissed the same.

       5. A writ petition was filed thereagainst before the High Court which has also been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment

       Findings of the Court :

       Impugned order has to be upheld, but at the same time the appellant has to be given pay protection.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

judgment

S.B. Sinha, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2.Whether for working for a long time in an ex-cadre post, an employee would be entitled to protection of scale of pay is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 19.05.2005 passed by the High Court of Kerala in W.P. (C) No. 37269 of 2003.

3. Appellant was recruited as an unskilled worker. He was a casual workman. He was, however, posted in Electrical Division. He was promoted from the post of Khalasi Helper in his parent cadre to that of Technician Grade III. He passed a trade test of Technician Grade III, which enabled him to be promoted to the post of Technician Grade-II. On or about 13.02.1989, he was promoted as Diesel Mechanic Grade II. He was further promoted as Diesel Mechanic Grade I with effect from 26.04.1991. He served in the said post till 7.04.2003 when by reason of the impugned order he was reverted to the post of Technician Grade III in the Electrical Division of the Railway Department.

4. Questioning the validity of the said order, he filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam inter alia contending that he could not have been reverted to the post of Technician Grade III in the Electrical Division on the premise that it was his parent cadre.

5. By reason of a judgment and order dated 11.11.2003, the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the said original application opining:

“5.In the face of the fact that the applicant was till his regular appointment by R-1 order dated 29.10.80 as Electrical Khalasi was working as a casual artisan, the case of the applicant that he commenced service in the Railways on 13.11.79 in the post of Diesel Engine Fitter (Diesel Mechanic) Grade III is found to be false and baseless. A-1 order by which the applicant was promoted as Diesel Mechanic Grade II makes it clear that the applicant was an artisan staff of the electrical branch and the posting was to an ex-cadre post. That the post of Diesel Mechanic Grade II to which the applicant was promoted is also an ex-cadre post is not disputed by the applicant. The applicant who belongs basically to the electrical branch holding a substantive post of Helper Grade I can have no legitimate grievance in regard to his promotion as Technician Grade III which is in the direct line of promotion in the hierarchy of service to which he belongs. That as a result of promotion in the parent department and repatriation from the ex-cadre post, there would be a fall in emoluments is only natural and unavoidable consequence which is common when a person is repatriated to the parent cadre from an ex-cadre post.”

6. A writ petition was filed thereagainst before the High Court which has also been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment stating:

“7.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the statement in Ext. P6 were incorrect since the Petitioner had not passed the trade test for promotion to the post of Technician Grade II/ Power and he had passed only trade test prescribed for Diesel Mechanics. However, if Ext. P6 specifically states that the Petitioner has passed such tests, we are not prepared to hold that this is a misstatement of fact. Promotion has been awarded to him, taking notice of his achievements as well. Since we find that there was no error in comprehending the issue at the hands of the Tribunal, in spite of the laborious effort made by the Counsel for the Petitioner, it may not be possible for us to come to a different conclusion.”

7. Mr. Romy Chacko, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, in support of the appeal, would submit that the appellant having worked in the Mechanical Division as a Diesel Mechanic for about 23 years, the respondents must be held to have acted arbitrarily in reverting him to the Electrical Division. In any view of the matter, it was urged, that the appellant would be entitled to protection of pay and allowance which he had been enjoying as Mechanical Grade I.

Strong
























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 Back to top