Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
AMALESH CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY& ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT10/05/1995
BENCH:
MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)
BENCH:
MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)
VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 612 1995 SCC Supl. (3) 105
1995 SCALE (3)595
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
THE 10TH DAY OF MAY,1995
Present:
Hon’ble Mr.Justice J.S.Verma
Hon’ble Mrs.Justice Sujata V.Manohar
Mr. Tapash C.Ray, Sr.Adv. and Mr.H.K.Puri, Adv, with him for
the appellants.
Mr.N.N.Goswami, Sr.Adv. Mr.M.P.Shorawala and Mr.A.K.Sharma,
Ms,Chandan Ramamurthi Advs. with him for the Respondents.
J U D G M E N T
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5493 OF 1995
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 12113 of 1994)
Amalesh Chandra Chakraborty ... Appellants
& Ors.
-v-
Union of India & ors. ... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.
Special leave granted.
The present appeal is from an order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, dated 6.5.1994 by
which the appellants’ appointments to the post of Guard have
been set aside. At the material time the appellants were
holding the substantive posts of Trains Clerks in the pay-
scale of Rs.1200-2040(RP). They were, however, provisionally
promoted to the posts of Assistant Head Train Clerks in the
pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300. The Eastern Railway issued a
Circular dated 10.9.91 for filling up the 152 posts of Good
Guards which included the backlog of previous selection, in
the pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040, by departmental promotion
from different eligible streams. One of the eligible streams
was of Train Clerks in the pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040. Under
the Circular dated 10.9.91 the last date for sending
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
applications was 30.9.91. Since the appellants were holding
the substantive post of Train Clerks they applied for their
reversion to the substantive post of Train Clerks and
applied for the post of Guard as per the Circular dated
10.9.91. The applications were made before 30th of
September,1991. The request of the appellants for reversion
to the substantive post of Train Clerks was accepted on
6.12.91. Thereafter, the appellants functioned in the post
of Train Clerks from the dates which are set out in the
Chart which has been annexed at page 119 of the paper-book.
From their respective dates of reversion any payment
received by them as Assistant Head Train Clerk has also been
recovered/deducted from their salary. The Railway Board had
been moved in the meanwhile by the Divisional Railway
Manager in connection with, inter alia, the request of the
appellants to be allowed to apply for the post of Guards and
this permission has been granted by the Railway Board by
their letter dated 13.8.92, a copy of which is annexed as R-
I to the counter-affidavit of respondents 1 to 3. As per the
letter of 13.8.92 in the selection process which had
started, Train Clerks who were in the grade of Rs.1400-2300
were allowed to appear for selection to the post of Goods
Guard as a last exception.
Pursuant to the applications which were received as
aforesaid, selection test were held in March, 1992 by which
day the appellants had reverted to the post of Train Clerks.
They were allowed to appear for the test and were ultimately
selected by Office Order dated 17.11.92 when the selection
list was published. The selected persons were sent for 37
days’ training and thereafter were given the posting as
Goods Guards at different places.
Respondents 4 to 23 challenged the selection of the
appellants before the Tribunal on 15th of December, 1992.
This challenge has been upheld by the Tribunal.
Looking to the fact that the appellants were only
provisionally holding the post of Assistant Head Train
Clerks and were holding the substantive post of Train
Clerks, the appellants were eligible for selection for the
post of Guard. They were also reverted to their substantive
post and excess pay was recovered from them in November and
December, 1991 prior to their being allowed to appear for
selection test. Any doubt on this score is set at rest by
the letter of 13.8.1992. The Tribunal was, therefore, not
right in setting aside the selection of the appellants and
cancelling their appointments to the post of Guard.
The order of the Tribunal is accordingly set aside. The
appellants having been duly selected and appointed as Guards
are entitled to hold the post. The appeal is accordingly
allowed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to
costs.