Facts
The applicant was engaged as a substitute Telephone-Attendant-Cum-Dak-Khalasi (TADK) on November 10, 2009, under the Chief Medical Superintendent (CMS), Varanasi
Source reference: p. 1, 6His appointment letter specified that he was engaged for an initial period of four months and his services could be terminated at any time
Source reference: p. 6On October 18, 2010, the applicant was conferred "temporary status" effective from March 10, 2010
Source reference: p. 2On April 26, 2011, he was prevented from performing his duties, and subsequently received an impugned order dated February 21, 2012, discharging him from service based on a 2011 note from the CMS citing "unsatisfactory service"
Source reference: p. 2, 7The applicant challenged the discharge, arguing that as a temporary status holder, he could not be removed without a formal disciplinary inquiry under the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether a substitute TADK conferred with temporary status can be discharged from service on grounds of unsatisfactory performance without following the procedure prescribed under the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968
Source reference: p. 2, 72. Whether the terms and conditions of the initial appointment letter override the protections granted by a circular mandating D&A procedures for staff with over four months of service
Source reference: p. 3, 7Law Applied
The court considered the Indian Railway Establishment Manual and the North Eastern Railway Circular dated January 1, 2010, which provides that no TADK who has completed more than four months of continuous service is liable to be discharged without the observance of prescribed D&A Rules
Source reference: p. 2, 8Railway Board Order RBE No. 102/2020 (dated December 1, 2020), which discontinued the fresh engagement of TADKs and stipulated that existing issues related to incumbent TADKs would be governed by prevalent Zonal Railway policies
Source reference: p. 4, 5The principle that "temporary status" grants eligibility for specific benefits like increments and leave but does not automatically exempt an employee from the conditional nature of their appointment
Source reference: p. 8Reasoning
The Tribunal analyzed the intersection between the applicant’s temporary status and the terms of his original appointment. It noted that while the applicant gained temporary status—entitling him to increments and passes—he remained a substitute who had not yet passed the mandatory screening test for regular post-induction
Source reference: p. 6, 8The respondents argued that the TADK Policy of 2010 was not applicable as the applicant was appointed in 2009 under specific terms allowing termination at any time
Source reference: p. 4The Bench observed that the discharge was based on a specific report of "unsatisfactory service" by the immediate officer (CMS, Varanasi)
Source reference: p. 7Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the entire policy for fresh TADK engagement had been abolished by the Railway Board in 2020. Consequently, the Bench reasoned that since the policy no longer exists and the applicant’s service was found unsatisfactory by his supervisor, judicial interference was not warranted
Source reference: p. 4-5, 8Holding
The Tribunal answered the issues in the negative, holding that the applicant was not entitled to reinstatement. It ruled that mere grant of temporary status does not override the fundamental condition that continuation in service is subject to satisfactory performance and the specific terms of the appointment letter
The Tribunal further noted that since the TADK appointment policy has been discontinued entirely by the Railway Board as of 2020, no relief could be granted. The Original Application was dismissed, and all interim orders were discharged
Source reference: p. 8Original Court PDF
SUDHISHvsGeneral Manager, N E Rly
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in