http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: AMALESH CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY& ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/05/1995

BENCH: MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J) BENCH: MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J) VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  612            1995 SCC  Supl.  (3) 105  1995 SCALE  (3)595

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:           THE 10TH DAY OF MAY,1995 Present:           Hon’ble Mr.Justice J.S.Verma           Hon’ble Mrs.Justice Sujata V.Manohar Mr. Tapash C.Ray, Sr.Adv. and Mr.H.K.Puri, Adv, with him for the appellants. Mr.N.N.Goswami, Sr.Adv. Mr.M.P.Shorawala and Mr.A.K.Sharma, Ms,Chandan Ramamurthi Advs. with him for the Respondents.           J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION           CIVIL APPEAL NO.5493 OF 1995 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 12113 of 1994) Amalesh Chandra Chakraborty   ... Appellants & Ors.           -v- Union of India & ors.         ... Respondents           J U D G M E N T Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.      Special leave granted.      The present  appeal is  from an  order of  the  Central Administrative Tribunal,  Calcutta Bench,  dated 6.5.1994 by which the appellants’ appointments to the post of Guard have been set  aside. At  the material  time the  appellants were holding the  substantive posts  of Trains Clerks in the pay- scale of Rs.1200-2040(RP). They were, however, provisionally promoted to  the posts of Assistant Head Train Clerks in the pay-scale of  Rs.1400-2300. The  Eastern  Railway  issued  a Circular dated  10.9.91 for filling up the 152 posts of Good Guards which  included the backlog of previous selection, in the pay-scale  of Rs.1200-2040,  by  departmental  promotion from different eligible streams. One of the eligible streams was of  Train Clerks in the pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040. Under the  Circular  dated  10.9.91  the  last  date  for  sending

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

applications was  30.9.91. Since the appellants were holding the substantive  post of Train Clerks they applied for their reversion to  the  substantive  post  of  Train  Clerks  and applied for  the post  of Guard  as per  the Circular  dated 10.9.91.  The   applications  were   made  before   30th  of September,1991. The  request of the appellants for reversion to the  substantive post  of Train  Clerks was  accepted  on 6.12.91. Thereafter,  the appellants  functioned in the post of Train  Clerks from  the dates  which are  set out  in the Chart which  has been annexed at page 119 of the paper-book. From  their   respective  dates  of  reversion  any  payment received by them as Assistant Head Train Clerk has also been recovered/deducted from  their salary. The Railway Board had been moved  in  the  meanwhile  by  the  Divisional  Railway Manager in  connection with,  inter alia, the request of the appellants to be allowed to apply for the post of Guards and this permission  has been  granted by  the Railway  Board by their letter dated 13.8.92, a copy of which is annexed as R- I to the counter-affidavit of respondents 1 to 3. As per the letter  of  13.8.92  in  the  selection  process  which  had started, Train  Clerks who were in the grade of Rs.1400-2300 were allowed  to appear  for selection  to the post of Goods Guard as a last exception.      Pursuant to  the applications  which were  received  as aforesaid, selection  test were held in March, 1992 by which day the appellants had reverted to the post of Train Clerks. They were allowed to appear for the test and were ultimately selected by  Office Order  dated 17.11.92 when the selection list was  published. The  selected persons  were sent for 37 days’ training  and thereafter  were given  the  posting  as Goods Guards at different places.      Respondents 4  to 23  challenged the  selection of  the appellants before  the Tribunal  on 15th  of December, 1992. This challenge has been upheld by the Tribunal.      Looking to  the fact  that  the  appellants  were  only provisionally holding  the  post  of  Assistant  Head  Train Clerks and  were  holding  the  substantive  post  of  Train Clerks, the  appellants were  eligible for selection for the post of  Guard. They were also reverted to their substantive post and  excess pay was recovered from them in November and December, 1991  prior to  their being  allowed to appear for selection test.  Any doubt  on this  score is set at rest by the letter  of 13.8.1992.  The Tribunal  was, therefore, not right in  setting aside  the selection of the appellants and cancelling their appointments to the post of Guard.      The order of the Tribunal is accordingly set aside. The appellants having been duly selected and appointed as Guards are entitled  to hold  the post.  The appeal  is accordingly allowed. In  the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.