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

2009 Supreme(All) 677

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S.Rafat Alam, Sudhir Agarwal
UNION OF INDIA
Versus
RAM SURAJ
Decided On : 02 March 2009
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11180 of 2009

Advocates Appeared:
V.K.Goel,

The main legal point established in the judgment is that a subsequent amendment in the Indian Railway Establishment Manual does not invalidate an already approved transfer order, especially when there is no dispute regarding the transfer date.

Headnote:

Transfer - Railway Employee - Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) - Para 102-A of IREM - The court discussed the transfer of a railway employee from Northern Railway to North Eastern Railway and the application of Para 102-A of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. The court highlighted the communication of the transfer order, the subsequent refusal to allow joining, and the Railway Board Circular dated 8. 2. 2000. The court emphasized the lack of dispute regarding the transfer date and the non-applicability of the subsequent amendment in the IREM to the already approved transfer order.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a railway employee, sought transfer from Northern Railway to North Eastern Railway, which was initially accepted but later faced resistance from the authorities. The respondent approached the Tribunal seeking to be treated as on duty and to receive salary and benefits for the disputed period.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the transfer order was communicated on 4. 2. 2000, and subsequent resistance from the authorities did not invalidate the approved transfer. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the respondent should be treated as on duty and entitled to salary and benefits for the disputed period.

Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the transfer, the applicability of the Railway Board Circular dated 8. 2. 2000, and the entitlement of the respondent to be treated as on duty and receive salary and benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the subsequent amendment in the Indian Railway Establishment Manual by inserting Para 102-A pursuant to Railway Board Circular dated 8. 2. 2000 did not invalidate the already approved transfer order. The court emphasized the lack of dispute regarding the transfer date and the non-applicability of the subsequent amendment in the IREM to the already approved transfer order.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the respondent was entitled to be treated as on duty and receive salary and benefits for the disputed period.

SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri V. K. Goel for the petitioners at length.

2. The writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "tribunal") disposing of the Original Applications No. 562 and 772 of 2004 of the petitioner-respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "respondent no. 1".

3. It appears from the record that the respondent no. 1 was working as PWI Selection Grade-III in Northern Railway in the pay scale of 6500-10,500 in the year 1997 and was posted at Sadalpur, Rajasthan under Bikaner Division of Northern Railway. He submitted an application seeking his transfer from Northern Railway to North Eastern Railway, which was accepted by the competent authority and was communicated to the respondent no. 1 by letter dated 4. 2. 2000 issued by the General Manager (Karmik), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. The aforesaid transfer was on bottom seniority

since was allowed on the request of the respondent no. 1 himself. It directed him to submit his joining in the office of General Manager (P) North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur for further posting. The respondent no. 1 was relieved on 28. 11. 2000. He submitted joining on 4. 12. 2000. It is said that vide Circular dated 8. 2. 2000, the Railway Board in the meantime amended the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (in short "irem") by inserting Para 102-A in Chapter-1 Section b sub section -1 which provides as under :

"102-A : Notwithstanding the provisions constrained in this Chapter, transfer on request on bottom seniority in the grades having an element of direct recruitment will be permissible against the quota prescribed for direct recruitment, provided that the employee seeking transfer possess the qualification prescribed for direct recruitment to the post to which transfer is sought for. "

4. The General Manager (Personnel), however, refused to allow joining to the respondent no. 1. The General Manager (Personnel) U. P. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi, thereafter, sent a letter on 1st January/february 2001 referring the matter for approval of the Railway Board and in the meantime, requested the concerned authorities at Gorakhpur to issue a first class duty pass in favour of the respondent no. 1 so as to enable him travel from Gorakhpur to Bikaner. There is nothing on record to show that such Duty Pass was issued. It appears that no decision was taken immediately but on the other hand, the Railway Board advised that the respondent no. 1 since did not possess the requisite qualification for his appointment as Junior Engineer/pwi pay scale 6500-10,500/- as per Para 102-A of IREM and, therefore, if he agrees, he may be allowed to remain on transfer in the scale of 5000-8000/- failing which he may be sent back. The respondent no. 1 did not exercise any option, though he was informed by letter dated 5. 7. 2000 and 18. 7. 2000. Ultimately the North Eastern Railway vide its letter dated 26. 4. 2002 accepted respondent no. 1s transfer and posted him in a single cadre post under TMC Organization under Executive Engineer, Gorakhpur as Section Engineer/tmc in the pay scale 6500- 10,500/ -. Request was then sent by the General Manager (P), North Eastern Railway to the Railway Board by letter dated 6. 7. 2002 seeking its approval for respondent no. 1s posting as Section Engineer/pwi in the pay scale of 6500-10,500/ -. The petitioners, however, did not treat the respondent no. 1 on duty from 1. 12. 2000 to 26/30. 4. 2002 when he was allowed to join at North Eastern Railway and communicating the same vide letter dated 29. 4. 2002, aggrieved whereagainst, the respondent no. 1 approached the Tribunal vide O. A. No. 560 of 2004 for treating him on duty during the period from 4. 12. 2000 to 26. 4. 2004 and to pay salary and other consequential benefits for the said period. While the aforesaid Original Application was pending before the Tribunal, it appears that the General Manager North Eastern Railway,










































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