Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 450 (RAJ)

Maga Ram v. Union of India

2002-02-20

O.P.BISHNOI, RAJESH BALIA

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by which the Original Application filed by him for securing a declaration that requiring from the petitioner to discharge the functions of Store Clerk in addition to the work of Head Clerk which he was holding, was contrary to rules and arbitrary and that consequential actions taken because the petitioner did not discharge the additional assignment of duties may be nullified. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Office Clerk on 16.7.1990 and currently he was holding the post of Head Clerk by securing promotion, the date of promotion is not disclosed. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that since 1996 the respondents have started to entrust him the work of Store Clerk also in addition to his duties as a Office/Senior Clerk in the office. It is admitted by him that since year 2000 the post of Store Clerk is being surrendered at many places. He has also placed on record the letter with the Original Application that the respondents are considering the sizing of the man power in Railways and it is part of that policy that number of posts of Store were to be surrendered. 4. When the petitioner was required to discharge the functions of Store Clerk in addition to his duties in the Office, he defied those orders which resulted in departmental proceedings against him by the Disciplinary Authority. He was awarded punishment of stoppage of 15 Passes and 20 PTOs for not discharging the duties of Store Clerk. The punishment has since been reduced to censure in appeal. 5. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been transferred from Samdari where he was required to discharge the functions of Store Clerk in addition to his duties in the office. However, he candidly states that at the place of new posting he is not required to discharge additional duties of Store Clerk. However, he expects that if, the writ petition is allowed, he may be re-transferred to Samdari where he is now prepared to discharge the functions of both Store Clerk as well as Head Clerk. The another statement made by the learned counsel that he is aggrieved of not assigning independent charge of the Stores to any officer at Samdari. 6. However, he expects that if, the writ petition is allowed, he may be re-transferred to Samdari where he is now prepared to discharge the functions of both Store Clerk as well as Head Clerk. The another statement made by the learned counsel that he is aggrieved of not assigning independent charge of the Stores to any officer at Samdari. 6. In the aforesaid backdrop, we find that he filed Original Application in 2001 soon after submitting representation. The CAT did not grant any relief by saying that such attitude of the petitioner is likely to create indiscipline in the smooth functioning of the Govt. and that the petitioner has also approached the CAT immediately after submitting his representation without waiting for its outcome. 7. In view of the facts noticed above and in the light of submissions made by the learned counsel about his grievance, we are of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 8. It is apparent that at present the petitioner has been transferred from Samdari to another place where admittedly he is discharging the functions of Head Clerk only and no additional work is being taken from him. It is also not the case of the petitioner that he was required to discharge the duties for additional working hours. He was sensing else he does not stand he was required to discharge the function of Store Clerk in 1996. The grievance has been raised officially for the first time, in 2001 particularly after noticing that from year 2000 there is a policy of sizing of the man power in the Railways and which has resulted in surrendering of posts of Store by the respondents. 9. In these circumstances, if the holder of post of Head Clerk is required to function as Store Clerk also in addition to his own work, because by abolition of post the work does not disappear, it cannot be said to be beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of managerial power to rationalise the man power available with him. There was no reason for the petitioner to have refused to discharge the duties assigned to him which is also of clerical nature and is not out of the nature of the work discharged by him simply because earlier thereto because of the administrative convenience both works were discharged separately and independently. There was no reason for the petitioner to have refused to discharge the duties assigned to him which is also of clerical nature and is not out of the nature of the work discharged by him simply because earlier thereto because of the administrative convenience both works were discharged separately and independently. Moreover, if as a result of transfer of the petitioner is not required to discharge the duties of Store Clerk, his grievance no more survives. He has shown his willingness to discharge both duties, if he is re-transferred to Samdari. This stance betrays the oblique motive of pursuit of this litigation viz. to achieve retransfer of his posting at Samdarl. Thus, no present cause of action survives. The petitioner cannot use the court proceeding as vehicle to secure transfers. 10. The petition is dismissed in limine.Writ Petition Dismissed in Limine. *******