Reversion of a railway servant from an officiating higher post to a substantive lower post amounts to a penalty if it is done as a punishment for misconduct or other reasons unconnected with the suitability of the employee for the higher post.

RAMANUJULU NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) IN this batch of writ petitions filed by members of the Loco Running Staff of the South Central Railway, orders passed by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Guntakal, reverting them from higher posts to lower post are challenged. At the relevant time, the petitioners were working either as drivers "a" grade, "b" grade, "c" grade, or as shunters, diesel assistants and fireman "b" grade and "c" grade. They were officiating in the said posts from periods ranging between four months and eighteen months. The impugned orders were passed on different dates between 2-2-1981 and 7-2-1981 under the following circumstances : The All India Loco Running Staff were making representations to the Railway Board as also to the authorities of the South Central Railway from time to time, that whereas other Railway employees had to work for a period of eight hours a day, no definite hours of work were fixed in respect of the loco running staff, that on several occations they were asked to work continuously for twenty four hours also and that as a result of such continuous strenuous work not only the health of the loco running staff was impaired, but also the efficiency of the running of the trains was affected. In response to their agitation, it is alleged by the petitioner, a tripartite agreement was entered into between late Sri L. N. Mishra, the then Minister for railways, Sri K. V. Raghunatha Reddy, the then Minister for Labour and the All India Loco Running Staff Association, whereunder members of the loco running staff were required to work only for ten hours a day. The agreement was to be implemented within six weeks from 13-8-73. As the agreement was, however, not implemented even after a lapse of eight years, the association decided to go on strike for implementation of the agreement and strike was commenced on 28/29-1-1981. It was claimed by the petitioners that they absented from duty with a view to avoid any tension and unnecessary rupture with the striking employees All of them were, however, reverted to lower posts.

( 2 ) SRI Babulu Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, urges that the impugned orders were passed not in bona fide exercise of the power conferred upon the appointing authority, but passed with a view to punish the petitioners for abstaining from duty during the period of strike and that, in any event, the impugned orders were passed by the appointing authority, without applying his mind, mechanically on the directions issued by the superior authority, namely, the Railway Board and the Committee consisting of the Chief Operating Superintendent and the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer.

( 3 ) IT is also submitted by Sri Babulu Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that at the instance of the Railway Board, all the striking employees of the loco running staff were punished by the appointing authority in some form or other, that such of those employees who attained the age of 55 years were compulsorily retired, that some other employees were transferred to far off places and that those employees filed writ petitions in this Court challenging the said orders.

( 4 ) WRIT Petitions 2458, 4153, 2491, 2455, 2607, 2611, 2612, 3705, 3374 and 3504 of 1981 filed by some of the other employees of the loco running staff who were compulsorily retired from service and who challenged the said orders of compulsory retirement were allowed by us by our judgment dated 14-10-1981. In and by the said judgment we held that the orders of compulsory retirement were made only to victimise and punish the employees for not responding to the call contained in the notice dated 2-2-81 issued by the Secretary of the Railway Board asking them to resume duty on the midnight of 2nd and 3/02/1981 that the notice was intended to be a threat to inflict punishment in case of defiance of the call contained therein and that the subsequent impugned orders of compulsory retirement passed by the appointing authority on the re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document