Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. The Central Administrative Tribunal held that they were not in agreement with the workman's contention, inasmuch as, there could be no estoppel against law, and that includes the statutory rules framed by the Railway Board as to eligibility. This Court supposes that by statutory rules as aforesaid, the Central Administrative Tribunal was referring to eligibility Rules for the post of a ticket collector. The Tribunal unequivocally denied relief to the workman to issue a direction to the Employers to appoint him as a ticket collector. The Central Administrative Tribunal found the workman's case to be based somewhat on a legitimate expectation as he had surrendered the post of a switchman, which was accepted by the Employers. This surrender was made and accepted on the supposition that the workman had been selected for the post of a ticket collector. In those circumstances, the Central Administrative Tribunal while not accepting a case of legitimate expectation for the workman to be appointed to the post of a ticket collector, held that the workman could not be denied both his rights, that is to say, to be appointed a ticket collector on an accepted surrender of his post of switchman by the Employers, and at the same time, deprived of his higher post of switchman, in consequence of the surrender of that post. The Tribunal recorded this part of the finding, in the following words:

"But at the same time we cannot ignore the fact that under legitimate expectation, the applicant surrendered the post of switchman and it is clear from the bare perusal of Annexure A-5 that his surrender was accepted because of his having been empanelled as Ticket Collector and it will not be in the interest of justice to kick the applicant from both sides, first by disqualifying from being a candidate for the post of Ticket Collector and at the same time to take away his genuinely earned promotion from the post of porter to the post of Switchman because he surrendered, no doubt unconditionally, but obviously under compelling circumstances to make him eligible to be posted as Ticket Collector."

20. The submission of Sri Vimlesh Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for the Employers is that so far as the first part of the reference is concerned, that is to say, the issue about promotion of the workman, back to the post of a switchman wherefrom he was reverted for a period of three years, could not have been examined or gone into by the Tribunal, inasmuch as, the said issue was considered, may be incidentally, by the Central Administrative Tribunal on the workman's Original Application no.1077 of 1995, decided by the Allahabad Bench of that Tribunal on 3rd May, 2001. The said Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal had been filed by the workman seeking relief to the effect that the respondents be directed to appoint the workman as a ticket collector in the Northern Railway on the basis of the Selection Examination that he has passed, and all of which has been described in detail hereinbefore. In the course of that judgment, according to Sri Vimlesh Kumar Rai, the Central Administrative Tribunal held that the workman had a legitimate expectation to be promoted to the post of a switchman, and for the purpose, permitted him to make a representation to the Employers, attended with a direction to decide that representation within a specified period. Sri Rai submits that the Central Administrative Tribunal held that when the workman applied for the post of ticket collector, he held lien on the superior post of a switchman, wherefrom he was reverted to the post of a porter in consequence of disciplinary proceedings for a time bound period of three years, that made him ineligible for the post of a ticket collector. The subsequent surrender of the post of switchman by the workman in order to maintain his candidature, the Central Administrative Tribunal did not accept as validation of his candidature, on the date that he sat the Ticket Collector's Examination. Learned counsel for the Employers submits that this would show that the Central Administrative Tribunal has decided this question of surrender of his post of switchman to the Railways, may be under a mistaken impression of the law that it would entitle him to maintain his candidature for the Ticket Collector's post. It is quite another matter that the Central Administrative Tribunal has found this deprivation of both opportunities, that is to say, of being appointed a ticket collector and being denied his promotion post, already held, to be rather unfair to the workman.

22. This Court has carefully considered the rival submission of parties about the aforesaid issue. The Court has also perused the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad rendered in Original Application no.1077 of 1995, and the relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned award. For one, this question of res judicata, applicable on principle, as it is argued by Sri Rai before this Court, does not seem to have been urged before the Tribunal. This plea is raised for the first time before this Court. Though res judicata is not attracted to the proceedings in hand with reference to the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, if one were to go by the strict requirements of Section 11 CPC, but this Court is conscious of the fact that what is sought to be urged by Sri Rai is not that res judicata is attracted stricto sensu. It is application of the principle of finality to an issue that has earlier engaged the attention of a Tribunal of competent jurisdiction, that Sri Rai wishes to call in aid. This Court does not think that any principle of finality or the principles underlying the doctrine of res judicata would be attracted to the present case so far as the rights of the workman to promotion involved here is concerned. A reading of the judgment in the Original Application decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal shows, that the workman's right to promotion on the post of a switchman was never in issue that was gone into, or decided by that Tribunal. Rather, the Central Administrative Tribunal held the workman ineligible for appointment to the post of a ticket collector as in view of the aforesaid Tribunal, the workman held lien on the higher post of a switchman at the time when he applied for the Ticket Collector's post. He was eligible by virtue of his then temporary status as a porter, but that was for a limited period of time, being a total period of three years from 25.02.1988 to 25.02.1992, during which he was reverted to the post of porter, as a measure of punishment awarded to him in disciplinary proceedings. The Central Administrative Tribunal, therefore, went a bit out of way to direct a consideration of the workman's claim to promotion back to his post of a switchman, because it appeared to the Central Administrative Tribunal to be rather unfair that the workman should be deprived of both benefits, that is to say, appointment consequent upon selection to the post of a ticket collector on one hand, and the loss of his right to go back to his post of a switchman that he surrendered under the perceived legitimate expectation that he would be considered for appointment as a ticket collector, once his substantive post became that of a porter, in consequence of the surrender. In those circumstances, the Central Administrative Tribunal acknowledged the fact that the workman had surrendered his post of switchman, and retained that of a porter, entitling him to a consideration by the Employers of his claim for promotion back to the post of switchman. It cannot be inferred that the Central Administrative Tribunal decided the validity of surrender of his post of switchman by the workman. That was only an incidental remark to support a benevolent direction made in the Original Application by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the Employers about the first part of the reference, as to validity of the action of the Employers in denying promotion to the workman to the post of a switchman, is not in any manner barred by any principle of finality or some kind of a res judicata, even by analogy, based on the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 03.05.2001 in Original Application no.1077 of 1995. The said contention is, therefore, untenable and is rejected.