Charge Mechanics promoted after amalgamation are entitled to notional JE (E&M) redesignation benefits.

The petitioners, who had been promoted to Charge Mechanic on 15 January 2014, sought the benefit of a 13 May 2010 notification merging specified posts, including Charge Mechanic, into the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical).

They relied on WP(C) No. 3008/2014, in which two Charge Mechanics had been granted the benefit of the notification, and whose decision was upheld by the Supreme Court.

The authorities rejected the petitioners’ claim on 18 February 2021, stating that the earlier judgment applied only to the two petitioners in that case.

The respondents also objected that the petition was not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction and contended that the present petitioners, who held two-year diplomas, were not similarly situated to the earlier petitioners.

Whether the High Court could entertain the joint petition when only four petitioners were serving within its territorial jurisdiction.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the 13 May 2010 notification, notwithstanding the rejection of their claim on the ground that the earlier judgment applied only to its two petitioners.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, territorial jurisdiction may arise where part of the cause of action occurs; Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254, recognises that an order made by an authority at a particular place may give rise to part of the cause of action there.

The Court also applied the principle in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405, relying on Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16: the validity of an administrative order must be judged by the reasons stated in the order and cannot be supplemented later by affidavit or other explanations.

The 13 May 2010 notification merged the specified posts, including Charge Mechanic, into Junior Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical); the Court also relied on the earlier decision in WP(C) No. 3008/2014, which had granted the same benefit to similarly situated Charge Mechanics and had been upheld by the Supreme Court.

The Court declined to non-suit the six petitioners outside its territorial jurisdiction, reasoning that the petitioners advanced an identical cause arising from the same impugned order and that separate proceedings would unnecessarily multiply litigation.

On the merits, it found that the petitioners had been promoted as Charge Mechanics and fell within the category covered by the 2010 notification.

The authority’s rejection order merely stated that the earlier judgment applied only to its two petitioners; it did not explain how the present petitioners were materially different or address any difference in their diploma qualifications.

The respondents’ affidavit did not cure that deficiency, and the Court held that the order had to be assessed on the reasons it actually gave.

Given the earlier decision concerning Charge Mechanics and the absence of a substantiated distinction, the Court followed that decision.

The benefits were limited to notional treatment for seniority and fitment in the appropriate scale; the authorities were directed to implement them expeditiously, preferably within two months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

Costs were made easy.