Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 694 (PAT)

Ramji Prasad Rai v. Union Of India

2002-07-02

R.N.PRASAD, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2002
Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. Ramji Prasad filed a claim petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal contending that his seniority in service had been incorrectly fixed by the Railway administration and prayed for its correction. His claim was registered as O.A. No. 204 of 1993 : Ramji Prasad Rai V/s. The Union of India and Ors. The Railway administration concerned is North Eastern Railway. The Central Administrative Tribunal found the claim of the petitioner as devoid of merit and accordingly rejected it. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the Tribunal dated 17 August, 2000 by the present writ petition. 2. The Court has heard counsel for the petitioner Dr. Sadanand Jha, Senior Counsel, counsel for the railway administration Mr. Manindra Kishore and counsel for respondent no. 4 Mr. S. K. Mishra. 3. The Court considers the matter too petty even on the aspect that the matter had to be taken up to the Tribunal for resolution and departmental justice should have been done to the petitioner within the administration itself. The Tribunal has not referred to any regulations. The Court points this out so that there is no misunderstanding within the administration that the aspect has been examined on the basis of violation of any regulations. 4. The competing claims are between the petitioner Ramji Rai and respondents 4, 5 and 6 M/s Kedar Nath Singh, Girija Nandan and Vijay Kumar Rai. The case is not between competing equalities so as to prefer between one candidate or the other on merits. The petitioner entered service on 24 May, 1968 as a casual waterman, the lowest run of the ladder for entering service. The respondents entered service 6 to 7 years later in 1974-75 as a material checker. One respondent entered service on 1 March, 1975, the other two on 1 September, 1974. The source of recruitment and entry into service was not similar. 5. The respondents had not even entered service and yet the petitioner had been given an assignment of substitute Khalasi on 9 April, 1969. Again the respondents had not entered service and the petitioner had been made carriage Khalasi on 7 May, 1973. Thereafter, the petitioner was made Store Issuer on 15 February, 1978. The petitioner was made a material checker on 22 March, 1982. 6. As already mentioned, the respondents entered service, one of them on 1.3.1975 and the others two on 1 September, 1974. Thereafter, the petitioner was made Store Issuer on 15 February, 1978. The petitioner was made a material checker on 22 March, 1982. 6. As already mentioned, the respondents entered service, one of them on 1.3.1975 and the others two on 1 September, 1974. The Court is not going into the question whether they had received substantive appointments as on the date of their entry of service or a time period should have elapsed to give them the benefit on the post on which they had been recruited. As opposed to the petitioner being made a material chacker on 22.3.1982 the respondents were made material checkers on 3.3.1983, one year later. 7. It is on record that the respondents had their seniority reckoned straightaway from the date of their appointment, that is, 1.3.1975, 1.9.1974 and 1.9.1974. It is on this that the petitioner contended that his seniority be reckoned from 15.2.1978 when he was promoted as a Store Issuer in the scale of Rs. 235-308/-. Now comes the relevant point. 8. In so far as the post of material checker was concerned, the petitioner had been temporarily posted as a material checker in the scale of Rs. 260-400/- with effect from 22.3.1982. It is this scale on which the respondents had been given promotion with effect from 3.3.1983 with a proforma pay fixation. 9. Now comes the question of seniority. The petitioner had already been given weightage of service to be put into the scale of Rs. 260-400 as a material checker as previously he had been a carriage khalasi and before that a substitute khalasi and prior to that a casual waterman having been recruited in 1969. By no stretch of imagination the category of service from which the petitioner was coming can be equated parallel to the respondents who were receiving appointments straightaway on the post of material checker. The petitioner and the respondents thus, could not be placed on an equal plane. This was the error which was committed by the Tribunal. The matter is very small but an employee expects administrative justice from his employer. If the post is a material checker, as it is at the time when the petitioner and the respondents could be equated then it is difficult for the Court to ignore the weightage of service. This was the error which was committed by the Tribunal. The matter is very small but an employee expects administrative justice from his employer. If the post is a material checker, as it is at the time when the petitioner and the respondents could be equated then it is difficult for the Court to ignore the weightage of service. Consequently, the petitioner had been placed in the scale and on the post of material checker notwithstanding that he was promoted temporarily, on 22.3.1982. 10. In the circumstances, substantial justice would be done if the seniority of the petitioner is reckoned from 22.3.1982. A writ of mandamus issues to the respondents of the Railway Administration, i.e., respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 4, to accord this seniority as directed, within one month. 11. The order of the Tribunal suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and is set aside by a writ of certiorari. 12. The petition succeeds. There will be no order as to costs.