Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Brief narration of facts, to an extent they are material and necessary, would be in order.

Respondent -Bhupinder Kumar joined Rail Coach Factory (RCF), Kapurthala (petitioner before us), as a casual Khalasi on 21.05.1986. On qualifying a trade test, he was promoted as Skilled Typist. During the course of service at RCF Kapurthala, he applied for the post of Typist against an advertisement issued by Railway Recruitment Board (RRB), Jammu. Having been selected, his name was approved and included in the panel for Diesel Component Work (DCW), Patiala. His case has been that he informed his Controlling Officer at RCF Kapurthala for relieving him as and when he receives the letter of appointment from DCW, Patiala. However, Chief Engineer (T.S.), RCF, Kapurthala, vide letter dated 19.01.1988, addressed to Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, RCF, Kapurthala requested for allowing the respondent to continue at RCF Kapurthala itself on loan basis for a period of two years. Consequently, vide letter dated 28.01.1988, office of OSD (RCF) requested DCW, Patiala that though the respondent was recommended for appointment to their unit, but he be temporarily given to RCF Kapurthala for a period of two years, as his services were essentially required for the said organisation. Vide letter dated 26.02.1988, DCW Patiala, informed RCF Kapurthala that the panel in which the name of the respondent exists, consisted of 40 persons out of which only 7 had been appointed by that time and since the name of the respondent was at Serial No.30, he could be appointed only on the maturity of his turn. Eventually, DCW Patiala vide letter dated 17.08.1988 forwarded the matter in relation to the appointment of respondent to RCF Kapurthala.

Correspondence between the two organisations further reveal that vide letter dated 28.09.1988, RCF Kapurthala, had requested DCW Patiala, for retention of the lien of the petitioner at Patiala. However, in response DCW Patiala, vide letter dated 21.12.1988, informed that there was no question of retention of the lien of the petitioner at DCW Patiala as the same was to be retained at RCF Kapurthala only. It is stated, though not required, yet RCF Kapurthala sent a letter to DCW Patiala for police verification of the respondent, vide letter dated 17.08.1988. Further, post receipt of the letter dated 17.08.1988, Singh Omkar the matter was prolonged for one reason or the other and it was only on 08.03.1989 that the RCF Kapurthala offered a fresh appointment to the respondent and he joined on the same day.

We may briefly point out, the petitioner before us (Union of India), in its reply before the Tribunal, clarified that it was, in fact, on the request of the respondent for retention at RCF Kapurthala, a letter dated 12.02.1988 was sent to the Chief Administrative Officer, DCW Patiala, vide which it was informed that the respondent had requested the RCF authorities for his absorption in RCF Kapurthala. The authorities at DCW Patiala were requested to send all the relevant papers regarding his empanelment so that his case could be processed for giving him appointment. It was pursuant to the said request, the panel was actually transferred to RCF Kapurthala, vide letter dated 17.08.1988. Respondent was appointed as Clerk-cum-Typist w.e.f. 08.03.1989 and assigned seniority accordingly. Since his appointment as Typist was afresh, his service had to be reckoned from the date he had actually been appointed in RCF Kapurthala i.e., on 08.03.1989. The error vide which respondent was assigned Singh Omkar seniority w.e.f. 17.08.1988 was rectified vide order dated 09.02.1998 and the seniority of the respondent was re-fixed w.e.f. 08.03.1989.

The short question, for consideration before the Tribunal was as to whether the respondent was retained at RCF Kapurthala by the administrative authorities as his services were essentially required and it was pursuant to the request made by the RCF Kapurthala that his panel was transferred by DCW Patiala.

Ex facie, the Tribunal relied upon the documents i.e., a letter written by Chief Engineer (TS), RCF, Kapurthala to Deputy Chief Personnel Officer on 19.01.1988 (Annexure R1) and a letter was written by RCF Kapurthala to DCW Patiala on 28.01.1988 (Annexure R2). On a conjoint reading of the said two letters, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that it was the administration at RCF Kapurthala, which had expressed the desire to retain the respondent with them, since his services were essentially required to the said organization. Resultantly, his panel was transferred from DCW Patiala to RCF Kapurthala. It was held, this would, in fact, fall within the meaning of transfer on administrative grounds. That being so, the O.A. was allowed and the order revising the date of appointment of the respondent from 17.08.1988 to 09.03.1989 and consequently orders assailed in the said proceedings were declared illegal and were, accordingly, quashed.