AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Yatindra Singh and Ran Vijay Singh, JJ.—The petitioner was working in the Railway as class ''C'' employee. He was on deputation to Iraq from 19.5.1988 to 7.6.1990. During this period, the Railways conducted Limited Group Service Examination (LGSE) and Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for promotions to class ''B'' service. The petitioner was not informed about these examinations and when he came back, he filed an application on 17.8.1990 for holding supplementary examination. This application was rejected on 8.6.1992. He filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. It was rejected on 6.1.2000. Hence the present writ petition.
We have heard Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Govind Saran for the respondent. The 75% of the vacancy in the traffic cadre is filled through LGSE examination. In these examination, candidate; three times the number of vacancies are called. The petitioner was not in this list and was not eligible. There is no illegality in not informing the petitioner. However, the same cannot be said about the LDCE examination.
The notification dated 1.12.1989 is regarding LDCE. Paragraph 6 of this notification is as follows:
If any of the employee of the Division are on deputation are working under Central/State/Semi Government Undertaking and whose lien is maintained by this Railway their present Controlling Officer should be advised to inform the candidates regarding the Examination provided I hey fulfill the conditions. Similar action should also be taken in respect of Divisional staff at present working in Railway Board/other Railway Establishments/ Constructions projects etc.
It is not disputed that at the time the LDCE examination was held, the petitioner was on deputation in Iraq. There is nothing to show that he was informed about the examination. This was wrong on the part of the Railways.
It is not disputed that the next examination was held on 4.4.1994. In this examination the petitioner was selected and was empanelled in Group ''B''. The petitioner has retired on 31.12.2007. Considering the fact that the fault was of the Railways in not informing to the petitioner, it will be appropriate to allow the writ petition with the direction that the petitioner should be given notional promotion in Group ''B'' from the date when his juniors were given promotion in group ''B'' service on the basis of LDCE. However, the petitioner will not be entitled for the salary for the period that he did not work on the promotional post but he will be entitled to other benefits including post retiral benefits. It may be calculated accordingly.
The writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 8.6.1992 and 6.1.2000 are modified as mentioned above.