JUDGEMENT :-This is an appeal by a Railway employee from the decree of the Civil Judge Roorki (at Saharanpur) affirming that of the City Munsif Saharanpur dismissing his suit for a declaration that he continues to be in the service of the Union of India. It is an important case because it reveals that some departments of Government have not yet realised that in making applying, and interpreting rules governing the conditions of service of their employees it is the duty of State to apply the directive principles of State policy in Part IV of the Constitution. The admitted facts are these the appellant Balwant Raj was employed by the Northern Railway on 8th August 1950 and appointed as a Painter-Khalasi under the Head Trains Examiner Saharanpur Within three years he was drawing Rs. 75 as salary and allowances. It is common ground that he was never guilty of any misconduct or misbehaviour. On 30th March 1953 he had the misfortune to be stricken with tuberculosis He reported sick and was admitted in the Railway Hospital at Saharanpur He remained on the sick list for three years and was discharged on 25th January 1956 under the orders of the Divisional Medical Officer Delhi (to be called the D.M.O.) who pronounced him fit for service and directed that he be sent back on duty. The Railway hospital authorities issued him a certificate of fitness, and on the same date the appellant reported for duty to his superior officer the Head Trains Examiner Saharanpur. The latter however informed him that during his illness the entire staff of the section to which the plaintiff belonged had been transferred to Kalka and directed him to report for duty at Kalka giving him three days' joining time on 30th January, 1956, the appellant reported for duly to the Works Manager. Kalka Workshop, who however directed him to report to the Works Manager, Jagadhari Workshop. Accordingly on 23rd February, 1956 the appellant reported himself for duty to the Works Manager Jagadhari. The appellant's case is that he attended the office of the Works Manager Jagadhari from 2nd till the 8th February 1956 when that officer directed him to obtain fresh orders Accordingly the appellant reported on duty to the Head Trains Examiner Saharanpur on 9th February 1956. The latter officer directed him to obtain fresh orders from the Divisional Personnel Officer Northern Railway Delhi (to be called D.P.O.) and issued a Third Class Duty Pass to enable the appellant to travel to Delhi. The appellant reported on duty to the D.P.O. Delhi on the next day the 10th February, 1956, and attended the office regularly till the 23rd June but no orders were issued to enable him to resume work. The Railway authorities refused to take him back in service and he was informed that his services had automatically terminated under Rule 731(1). Note 3 of the Railway Establishment Code because he had remained absent from duty for a period longer than he was entitled to do under the rules. Thereupon the appellant after serving a notice on the Railway under S. 80 C.P.C filed the present suit for a declaration that he continues to be in service. The Railway resisted the suit and filed a written statement In it the material facts alleged in the plaint were conceded it was admitted that the appellant had fallen ill and had to be treated for tuberculosis in the Railway Hospital it was also admitted that he was discharged as fit for duty on 25-1-1956. The Railway made no allegations of misconduct or improper behaviour on the part of the appellant But it relied on a certain rule in the Railway Establishment Code which, according to them, provides for automatic termination of the service of a Railway employee if he falls to resume duty on the expiry of the maximum period of leave due to him. According to the Railway the leave at the credit of the appellant when he fell ill was 8 days on average pay 15 days on half average pay, and one and a half years without pay. The maximum period of leave to which the ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document