Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kheta Ram & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 December, 2016
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B.CIVIL WRIT NO. 12317 / 2016
1. KHETA RAM S/O SHRI GUNESHA RAM, AGED 58 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHALASARIA, DISTRICT JODHPUR
(RAJASTHAN)
2. MOHAN RAM S/O SHRI KHETA RAM, AGED 25 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHALASARIA, DISTRICT JODHPUR
(RAJASTHAN)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH-
WESTERN RAILWAY, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)
2. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, NORTH WESTERN
RAILWAY, JODHPUR DIVISION, JODHPUR (RAJASTHAN)
3. DIRECTOR (P & A), RAILWAY BOARD, GOVT. OF INDIA,
NEW DELHI.
4. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NORTH WESTERN
RAILWAY, JODHPUR.
5. ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, NORTH WESTERN
RAILWAY, JAISALMER, (RAJASTHAN)
6. SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER, NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
MARWAR MATHANIYA, JODHPUR (RAJASTHAN)
----Respondents
__________________________________________________
For Petitioners : Mr. MS Godara
For Respondents : Mr. Kamal Dave
__________________________________________________
(2 of 4 )
[CW-12317/2016]
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
Order Per Hon'ble The Chief Justice 14/12/2016 The present writ petition arises from order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur dismissing O.A. No.290/00112 of 2015.
The discussion of the Tribunal with regard to the LARGESSE Scheme need not engage the attention of the Court as it is not considered relevant in the nature of the limited controversy in the present application. Admittedly, the son of petitioner No.1 has not been provided appointment or employment under the Railways pursuant to the Scheme.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that he had requested to be relegated to the lower post of Key-man or Track-man from Mate under the LARGESSE Scheme to facilitate the consideration of his son for appointment under the Scheme. The Authorities on 14.10.2013 relegated him to the lower post of Track-man but subsequently took the plea that the petitioner No.1 did not fulfill the terms of eligibility under the LARGESSE Scheme and therefore his son could not be considered. If the order dated 14.10.2013 itself was contrary to the LARGESSE (3 of 4 ) [CW-12317/2016] Scheme, the respondents themselves are required to rectify their own mistake by restoring status quo ante.
Counsel for the respondents submits that the error in passing order dated 14.10.2013 was detected subsequently in view of a clarificatory circular of the Railways. Moreover, he was sent to the lower post of Track-man on 14.10.2013 but approached the Tribunal for appropriate relief in 2015. If he is to be adjusted today on his erstwhile post of Mate, it may create complications with regard to the seniority etc. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties.
It is trite law that no one can be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong. If the order dated 14.10.2013 passed by the respondents themselves is stated to be without jurisdiction, they cannot retain the benefit of the same while setting it aside on a precocious plea of seniority issues. The error committed by the respondents has to be rectified by them alone with all consequential necessary actions if the order dated 14.10.2013 was itself not in consonance with law.
The petitioner No.1 is held entitled to reinstatement on the post of Mate which he held. He shall however not be entitled to salary for the post of Mate for the period that he may not have discharged duty in that capacity. For all other service purposes, it shall be deemed to be service performed on (4 of 4 ) [CW-12317/2016] the post of Mate.
The order to comply with within six weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of the order.
The writ petition is allowed.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR)J. (NAVIN SINHA)C.J. ms/-34