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

PETITIONER: SHRI SUNDER LAL & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/09/1998

BENCH: SUJATA V.MANOHAR, S.RAJENDRA BABU

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:  JUDGMENT Sujata V. Monohar. J. The  appellants  were  initially  appointed  in  the service   of   the  North  Eastern  Railway  as  carpenters. However, on their  passing  trade  test  for  carpenter  and wireman  they  were appointed as wiremen-cum-carpenters with effect from   16.12.1968.        As    the    category    of carpenter-cum-wireman   was  a  non-standard  category,  the North-Eastern railway  authority  decided  to  abolish  this category in  1978.    Options were invited from the original appellants who were six in number  to  opt  either  for  the carpenter’s category  or  wireman’s  category.   In 1979 the appellants  exercised  their  option  for  the  category  of wireman.  Thereafter  they were posted as wiremen.  However, on account of problems which arose relating to the seniority of the appellants qua  the  existing  wiremen,  the  General Manager  of  North-Eastern  railway  by  issuing order dated 24.9.1984, decided to put the appellants in the category  of carpenter   which  was  the  category  in  which  they  were initially appointed.  Their  names  were  removed  from  the seniority list of wiremen. The appellants had, in the meanwhile, in 1984  filed a  suit  for a declaration that they were eligible to appear for the test for promotion to  the  highly  skilled  wireman Grade II posts.    Since they were absorbed as wiremen.  The suit was decreed.  The appeal which was transferred  to  the Central  Administrative  Tribunal  has  been allowed and the suit has been dismissed.  The Tribunal has rightly  come  to the  conclusion  that  under  paragraph  2011  of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume II a  competent  authority may  transfer  a  railway  servant  from one post to another provided  that,  except  on  account  of   inefficiency   or misbehaviour  or  on  his  written  request, he shall not be transferred to a post carrying less pay than the pay of  the post over which he holds a lien. In the present  case  the  posts  of  carpenter  and wireman  are  equivalent posts carrying the same pay and the same terms and conditions of service.  The post of carpenter is also a post  to  which  the  appellants  were  originally appointed.   Now,  on  account of administrative reasons the

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

appellants have been posted as carpenter instead of  wiremen when  the  category of carpenter-cum-wireman was proposed to be abolished.  We are also informed  that  out  of  the  six appellants  two  have been died and the other four have been working  as  carpenter  after  the   Tribunal’s   order   of 10.2.1987.   Looking to all the circumstances of the present case this is not a fit case for setting aside  the  decision of  the  General  Manager  of  24.9.1984 when the appellants continued to get the same pay in the same pay-scale and  the terms  and  conditions  of  service were not affected in any manner. The appeal  is  therefore,  dismissed.  There  will, however, be no orders as to costs.