Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

JUDGMENT S.Saghir Ahmad. J.

Leave granted.

The appellant was appointed as Khalasi under the Loco Foreman, Ambala Cantt and was posted as Coal/Fuel Khalasi at Nangal Dam where he worked upto 15th of September, 1972. On 16th of Sept. 1972 he was spared and transferred to Carriage and Wagon Department of Northern Railway and was posted as khalasi at Khanalampura Goods Yard, Saharanpur, where he joined on 20.9.1972. He was again transferred to Ambala Cantt on 11.6.1978 where he passed the trade test for the post of Semi-skilled Fitter and was promoted to that post. He was further promoted, after passing the requis trade test, as skilled Fitter on 9.5.1979.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, contended that the handling of coal in the Loco department was given to contractors and therefore, all the posts of Coal khalasi were surrendered as a result of which the appellant including many others were declared surplus and they were, on compassionate ground, absurder as Khalasis in the Carriage and Wagon Department and therefore, the appellant was entitled to count his seniority in the Carriage and Wagon Department only with effect from 1972 when he as appointed in that Department. He was not, it is contended, entitled to count his previous service rendered as Coal Khalasi in the Loco Department from 1964 to 1972, towards his seniority. His promotions consequently were made at a time when he was on the basis of seniority in the Carriage and Wagon Department. Not entitled to be promoted either as Semi-skilled Fitter or as Skilled Fitter, notwithstanding that he had passed the trade tests for the two posts. It is further contended that the appellant should not have, as a matter of fact, been called for the trade tests.

The main issue, therefore, between the parties was whether the period of service rendered by the appellant, from 1964 to 1972 as Coal Khalasi in the Loco Department, was liable to be counted towards his seniority in the Carriage and Wagon Department where he was appointed in 1972 or it was to be ignored altogether. It is obvious that if the appellant had already acquired the permanent status in the Loco Department, he would be entitled to the benefit of previous service rendered by him in that Department, for the purpose of his seniority in the Carriage and Wagon Department where he was appointed in 1972.

"Note: The absorption of the above noted staff are purely as a temporary measure. They will not have any right of absorption in the category other than for which they are empanelled. They will be considered for posting back on occurrence of vacancies on loco side as Kh. Changes may be advised promptly.

Sd/- Asstt.Personnel Officer/III N.Rly New Delhi"

It is on the basis of this "Note" that Mr. Goswami contended that it was not a case of transfer of the appellant from the Loco Department to Carriage and Wagon Department but was a case of absorption, as a temporary measure, of the appellant who was declared surplus as Coal Khalasi in the Loco Department. He contended that this was enough to indicate that the appellant was not holding a permanent status and was consequently treated to have been appointed afresh in 1972 as Khalasi in the Carriage and Wagon Department and his seniority was rightly reckoned from that date with the result that the promotion orders in 1978, on the post of Semi-skilled Fitter and in 1979, on the post of skilled Fitter, could not have been legally issued as the appellant, on the basis of his seniority was not even entitled to be called for trade tests much less to be promoted on the posts in question. The promotions were given to the appellant on these posts only because the Administration, by mistake, had given the benefit of service rendered in the Loco Department from 1964 to 1972 towards his seniority in the Carriage and Wagon Department. Having perused the original record and having found that the appellant, who was initially appointed as Khalasi in 1964, was given temporary status in 1965 and was confirmed from 11.4.1965, we are of the positive opinion that it was not a case of mistake on the part of Administration, as contended by Mr. Goswami, but they had rightly given the benefit of previous service to the appellant who was, as a consequence thereof, rightly called for trade tests for the posts of Semi-skilled Fitter and Skilled Fitter and having passed those tests was rightly promoted on those posts. There is, however, a limited reservation. Whether the service rendered by the appellant from the date on which he was appointed as Substitute Khalasi up to the date on which he acquired 'permanent' status would be counted for seniority or not is a question which is to be decided by the authorities in the light of the relevant provisions of the Service Rules contained in the Railway Establishment code or the Manual or circular letters of the Railway Board. We may, however, make it clear that we are not deciding any dispute of seniority as between the appellant and those who were already working in the Carriage & Wagon Department when the appellant came there.