Allahabad High Court
Union Of India Thru General Manager, ... vs Ashok Kumar Pathak S/O Prem Prakash ... on 1 February, 2010
Author: Sunil Ambwani
Bench: Sunil Ambwani
Court No. - 4 Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 86 of 2010 Petitioner :- Union Of India Thru General Manager, N.Railway & Ors. Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Pathak S/O Prem Prakash Pathak & Anr. Petitioner Counsel :- Anil Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.
Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J.
Heard Shri Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for the Union of India. Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla appears for claimant-respondent No.1 The claimant-respondent No.1 was working as Khalasi. He was promoted by Workshop Electrical Engineer, Charbagh, Lucknow on 4.1.1986 as Typist after he was declared suitable in a test. He claimed seniority on the post of Typist and thereafter as Senior Typist. One Shri Virendra Pal was also appointed as Officiating Typist by the same order. The Tribunal has, by the impugned judgment and order dated 23rd November, 2009 in O.A. No.88 of 2004, found that the respondents have not denied that the claimant was promoted in 33 1/3% quota from the post of 'Khalasi' to the post of Typist and that the railway committed error in not placing him in the seniority list at an appropriate place.
Shri Anil Srivastava submits that the promotional channel for the post of Typist is from office Khalasi. The claimant's promotion was dehorse the rules. The claimant was entitled to be promoted in the artisan category and is not entitled to seniority maintained at the divisional level.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and do not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal. The contention that the claimant could be promoted only by DRM cannot be accepted as by the letter dated 25th May, 1984, the Divisional Railway Manager had authorised divisional office to function independently to fill up the vacancies of Typist in the lowest grade against direct/ Class-IV quota and to advice the actual date of appointment/ regularisation for incorporating their names in the seniority list. The letter is quoted as below:-
"No.220/E/6-3/Typist/Cl.IV/84 Divl.Office Lucknow dt.25th May 1984 Dy.C.M.E. (C&W) Alambagh, Lucknow.
Sub.:-Selection of Typists in Grade Rs.260-400 (RS) against Class IV Quota.
Ref.:- Your letter No.961-E/DCME/17/NRMU/CWE/83 dt.14.10.83.
In terms of P.S. NO.3420 it has already been advised by this office letter No.220-E/6-3/Typist Class IV dt.16.1.82 that in order to fill up the vacancies of Typist in lowest grade viz. Rs.260-400 (RS) against direct/Class IV quota, extra divisional office will function independently and advise the actual date of appointment/regularisation if any, for the purpose of incorporating the name in the seniority list of typists.
Vinod 24/5 for Divl. Railway Manager, N.Rly., Lucknow."
It is not denied that the claimant-respondent No.1 was given promotion after selection and that the panel was notified to the office of DRM. The counsel for railways has not produced any such service rules or circular to establish that the selection was to be limited only to Office Khalasi. The claimant-respondent's promotion has neither been cancelled nor any order has been passed to treat him in artisan category. Shri Virendra Pal was also selected and appointed on officiating basis by the Workshop Electrical Engineer as Typist. He has been included in the seniority list. The Tribunal did not commit any error in directing that the claimant-respondent's name be included in the seniority list at the appropriate place and that he should be given notional seniority from the date his juniors got promotion.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.2.2010 SP/