Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1243 (PAT)

Arun Kumar Jaiswal v. Union Of India

2000-11-17

AFTAB ALAM, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2000
Judgment 1. The sole petitioner has been finally promoted to the post of Head Ticket Collector by office order no. 43, dated 17.3.1998. There is no controversy so far as this promotion is concerned. What is in controversy is his earlier promotion to the post w.e.f. 30.11.1984 and his subsequent "reversion" to the post to Senior Ticket Collector by order dated 8.5.1999. The petitioner maintains that he was wrongly reverted to the post of Senior Ticket Collector by order dated 8.5.1990 and his promotion to the post of Head Ticket Collector should, therefore, be reckoned w.e.f. 30.11.1984. 2. On the earlier occasion, the petitioner alongwith seven other persons was given promotion from the post of Senior Ticket Collector to that of the Head Ticket Collector by order dated 30.11.1984. In that promotion panel, the petitioner figured at the bottom at serial no. 8. Two persons above him at serial nos. 7 & 8 were Ramayan Mishra and Akhilesh Kumar. The last three in the promotion panel, including the petitioner, were later reverted to the post of Senior Ticket Collector by order dated 8.5.1990. Ail the three challenged the order of reversion by filing separate Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna. The petitions filed by the other two persons were disposed of by the Tribunal before the case of the present petitioner was taken up. The petition of Akhilesh Kumar (O.A. no. 45 of 1991) was rejected by order dated 4.9.1992 whereas the petition filed by Ramayan Mishra (O.A. no. 518 of 1990) was allowed on 16.9.1991 on the ground that the reversion was held to be violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. 3. Faced with this situation, when the petition of the present petitioner was taken up, it was referred to a Full Bench of the Tribunal for resolving the contrary decisions taken in the earlier two petitions of Ramayan Mishra and Akhilesh Kumar. The petition filed by the present petitioner being OA no. 375 of 1991 was finally rejected by the Full Bench of the Tribunal by judgment and order dated 17.9.1998 and this writ petition has been filed against this judgment. 4. The Full Bench of the Tribunal held that the so-called reversion of the petitioner and the other two persons was simply a case of correcting a mistake by the railway authorities. 4. The Full Bench of the Tribunal held that the so-called reversion of the petitioner and the other two persons was simply a case of correcting a mistake by the railway authorities. It was found and held that while granting promotion to the eight persons, including the three applicants before the Tribunal in 1984 the claim of three other persons was over looked by mistake and when this fact came to notice the petitioners were put back on their substantive posts of Senior Ticket Collector. 5. It was sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that it was not a case of mistake but the case of the other three persons, though senior to the petitioner, was not considered as one of them was involved in a criminal case and the other two had declined promotion to avoid transfer. 6. The contentions raised by the petitioner were denied by the authorities and their denial was accepted by the Tribunal to hold that it was a case of over sight and the other three persons were missed out from being considered for promotion. 7. That being the position, the Tribunal held and, in our view, quite rightly that there was no question of any violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. It was simply a case of correcting an earlier mistake. The Tribunal also has taken care to protect the petitioner from any recovery of the differential salary for the period in question. We are satisfied that no more relief can be granted to the petitioner by this Court. 8. This petition is, accordingly dismissed.