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

1978 Supreme(Cal) 120

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Anil Kumar Sen & B.C. Chakrabarti, JJ.
Divisional Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway & other
Versus
M.P. Ranga Reddy & other
Mandamus Appeal No. 754 of 1973
Decided On: February 17 & 21, 1978

Advocates appeared:
S.D. Banerjee, Prasanta Kumar Ghose for the appellant.
Sadhan Gupta, S.N. Ganguli for respondents 1 to 7.
H.C. Ghose, S.R. Goswami for respondent nos. 8 to 15.

The seniority of railway servants transferred from one cadre to another in the interest of the administration is regulated by the date of promotion/date of appointment to the grade from which they are transferred.

Headnote:

RAILWAY SERVICE - SENIORITY - TRANSFER OF FIREMEN TO ASSISTANT DRIVERS - APPLICABILITY OF RULE 311 OF CHAPTER III OF THE MANUAL REGULATING SENIORITY OF NON-GAZETTED RAILWAY SERVANTS - INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM ‘GRADE’ - FIXATION OF SENIORITY WITH REFERENCE TO DATE OF APPOINTMENT OR PROMOTION TO THE GRADE FROM WHICH TRANSFERRED - REVERSION OF PROMOTED EMPLOYEES TO ACCOMMODATE TRANSFEREES - LEGALITY - EIGHTEEN MONTHS’ RULE - APPLICABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

Firemen rendered surplus due to curtailment of steam side in railways were trained and absorbed as Assistant Drivers in electric traction. Their seniority was determined with reference to their respective dates of appointment or promotion as firemen, resulting in the reversion of some Assistant Drivers who were temporarily promoted to Shunters. The affected Assistant Drivers challenged the revision of the seniority list and the consequent reversion.

Finding of the Court:

1. Rule 311 of Chapter III of the Manual regulating seniority of non-gazetted railway servants applies to the transfer of firemen to assistant drivers in the interest of administration. 2. The term ‘grade’ in Rule 311 refers to the grade from which the employee is transferred, not the grade to which they are transferred. 3. The seniority of the transferred firemen should be fixed with reference to their respective dates of appointment or promotion as firemen. 4. The reversion of the promoted Assistant Drivers to accommodate the transferred firemen was justified on administrative grounds and did not violate the eighteen months’ rule.

Issues: 1. Whether Rule 311 of Chapter III of the Manual regulating seniority of non-gazetted railway servants applies to the transfer of firemen to assistant drivers in the interest of administration. 2. How should the seniority of the transferred firemen be determined? 3. Whether the reversion of the promoted Assistant Drivers to accommodate the transferred firemen was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 311 of Chapter III of the Manual regulating seniority of non-gazetted railway servants applies to the transfer of firemen to assistant drivers in the interest of administration because: - Rule 311 specifically provides for the seniority of railway servants transferred from one cadre to another in the interest of the administration. - The transfer of firemen to assistant drivers was in the interest of administration as it prevented unemployment and protected the interest of the transferred employees. 2. The seniority of the transferred firemen should be fixed with reference to their respective dates of appointment or promotion as firemen because: - Rule 311 provides that seniority on transfer is regulated by the date of promotion/date of appointment to the grade. - The term ‘grade’ in Rule 311 refers to the grade from which the employee is transferred, not the grade to which they are transferred. 3. The reversion of the promoted Assistant Drivers to accommodate the transferred firemen was justified on administrative grounds and did not violate the eighteen months’ rule because: - The reversion was not based on unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance of work. - The reversion was based on administrative grounds, namely, the need to accommodate the transferred firemen with higher seniority.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed. The judgment and order of the learned judge were set aside. The writ petition preferred by the affected Assistant Drivers was dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kumar Sen, J.

1. This is an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent by Union of India and two of the authorities of South Eastern Railway, namely, the Divisional Personnel Officer and the Divisional Superintendent, Kharagpur. The appellants are challenging in this appeal the judgment and order dated August 20, 1973 passed by a learned single judge allowing a writ petition of respondents Nos. 1 to 7 wherein they challenged the validity of revision of seniority list of Assistant Drivers in the electric traction and the consequent reversion of the said respondents from the post of Shunters to which they were temporarily promoted and replacing them by respondents Nos. 8 to 15. The main issue that arose for consideration in the trial court and which has also been raised before us in this appeal is as to whether the appellants while absorbing respondents Nos. 8 to 15 in the cadre of Assistant Drivers, electric traction on they being rendered surplus as firemen in the steam side could confer the seniority in the cadre of Assistant Drivers with reference to the respective dates of appointment or promotion of the said respondents Nos. 8 to 15 as firemen or they should be conferred such seniority with reference to the date they were absorbed in the cadre of Assistant Drivers. Facts leading to the dispute may shortly be stated. Sometime in 1965 respondents Nos. 1 to 7 were directly recruited as Assistant Drivers, Electric Traction in the scale of Rs. 125-155. In 1967 the railway authorities published a seniority list of such Assistant Drivers. On the basis of their respective seniority position in the said list respondents 1 to 7 were found eligible and were sent up for training for further promotion as Shunters which promotion was given to them on varied dates between October 1968 and July 1970. Such promotion, however, was conferred on them purely as a temporary measure. The extension of electric traction in that section of the railways led to curtailment of the steam side which resulted in rendering men in that side to be surplus. Respondents Nos. 8 to 15 who were serving for long years as firemen in the steam side in the grade of Rs. 125-155 a grade equivalent to the grade of Assistant Drivers, electric traction were rendered surplus and accordingly they were trained up as Assistant Drivers for electric traction and were absorbed as such on varied dates but all after 1967. The names of these respondents, namely, respondents Nos. 8 to 15 were not borne on the seniority list of Assistant Drivers of 1967 and hence on July 8, 1970 the railway authorities revised the said seniority list by bringing these respondents on the list. They were, however given seniority position determined with reference to their respective dates of appointment or promotion to the post of firemen and not with reference to their date of absorption as Assistant Drivers. Since these respondents Nos. 8 to 15 were serving for longer years as firemen than the period respondents Nos. 1 to 7 were serving as Assistant Drivers they were naturally conferred higher seniority than respondents Nos. 1 to 7. Seniority list of Assistant Drivers being so revised, as a necessary consequence respondent Nos. 1 to 7 who were enjoying the benefit of their previous seniority by way of temporary promotion to the next higher rank of Shunters were reverted to the post of Assistant Drivers by an order dated January 5, 1971 and they were replaced in their respective Post of Shunters by one or other of respondents Nos. 8 to 15. Respondents Nos. 1 to 7 felt aggrieved by the aforesaid revision dated July 8, 1970 of the seniority list of Assistant Drivers, electric traction and the order of reversion dated January 5, 1971 and they as petitioners challenged them in the writ petition out of which the present appeal arises. According to them, respondents Nos. 8 to 15 could be conferred seniority position in the seniority list of Assistant Drivers only with reference to the date of















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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