AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. K. Mahajan, J.—The judgment in this Second Appeal arising out of Original Suit No. 501 of 1977 decided on 23479 and Civil Appeal No. 256 of 1979 allowing the appeal would also dispos''e of the connected Second Appeal No. 3080 of 1982 as common question of law and facts are involved and it is covered now by decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 72895/1983 Shiv Rattan Soni and others v. Union of India and others.
It appears that Mian Bhai Commission was appointed to consider the grievances of railway employees and it gave its report. As a result of the report it was decided by the competent authority that all the Mistries who were working in the supervisory capacity were to be upgraded as Chargeman GradeB. It is relevant to refer the grade. The Mistries who were working in the scale of Rs. 175240 and later on in view of the recommendations of the Mian Bhai Commission report they were given grade of Rs. 425700 (GradeD). Again this category of ChargemanB was merged after abolition of ChargemanC with the same grade Rs. 425700. Appellants in these two appeals were working in Heat Treatment Workshop, Loco Workshop, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur at the relevant time.
After enforcement of Scheme of upgradation the Mistris Grade1, who were working previously in the parent shop floor and later on they were transferred to production control organisation. These persons who were Mistris or skilled Artisans opted to work in the Production Control Organisation (PCO) of the Railway. In Second Appeal No. 1969 of 1982 the plaintiffappellant filed suit in the Court of Munsif, Gorakhpur for declaration that the order of promotion issued by the Deputy C.M.E., Gorakhpur transferring the plaintiff from the Heat Treatment Shop to the PCO as Mistri GradeI on reversion and promoting the defendant as Chargeman in Scale Rs. 425 700 is illegal and also demanded the consequential benefits of the scale of Rs. 425 700 as mentioned in the plaint. The suit was decreed but the appeal of the Union of India was accepted and it is how this Second Appeal has arisen.
In the connected Second Appeal No. 3080 of 1982 Union of India v.Jawahar Lal Srivastava and twenty others, Jawahar Lal Srivastava and twenty others filed suit in the court of Munsif of Gorakhpur claiming the same type of benefit and their suit was decreed and later on the appeal of the Union of India was also dismissed. The lower court decreed the suit that there is no need of facing selection board by the appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellant in Second Appeal No. 3080 of 1982 Shri Lalji Sinha has submitted that in view of the recommendations of the Mian Bhai Commission they were promoted in GradeC and they are holding posts since long. He further submitted that it was only upgradation of post and there was no need of selection.
Shri Lalji Sinha learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the finding of the lower court that they can be appointed without facing selection board in appeal is bad in law and is against the spirit of the circular. He relied upon two judgments, one of High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur Union of India and others v. Shiv Ratan Soni and others and another in D. B. Special Appeal No. 457 of 1980 and another judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad in T.A. NO. 1000 of 1987 Vishwanath Misra and 36 others v. Union of India and three others delivered on 951989. In my view, after the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 72895/1983 Shiv Rattan Soni and others v. Union of India and others these judgments do not help much. The Hon''ble Supreme Court observed that the appellants or respondents who were working on their new posts since long be permitted to continue to work in the P.C.O. and their reversion be treated as inoperative. Similarly, the appellants in these two appeals who filed the suit have been working since long in the P.C.O. on GradeB post which was upgraded in view of the report of Mian Bhai Commission. In fact the upgradation of the posts takes place to remove the stagnation and to open the chances of promotion to the workers who are already working. In the light of Supreme Court judgment they need not be reverted from the original post as they are working on the upgraded posts since long.
Shri Lalji Sinha, learned counsel for the Union of India does not dispute the applicability of the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the present case. However, he has stressed that this should not become precedent for others and future promotion can be claimed in accordance with law.
Keeping in view the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court the appeals are disposed of and the decrees of the lower court are modified to this extent. The appeals are disposed of in these terms.