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

PETITIONER: LAKSHMI NARAYAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION INDIA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/12/1996

BENCH: N.P. SINGH, K. VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T      Venkataswami. j.      Leave granted.      The third  respondent Govind  sahai was  promoted by  a order dated  24.4.1976 as Diesel Foreman. Aggrieved by that, the appellant  challenged that  order of promotion by filing Writ Petition  (Civil) No.  153 of 1978 in the High Court of Rajasthan which  was subsequently transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal  and  numbered  as  T.A.No.  359/86. According to the appellant, the said govind Sahai was junior to hm as Diesel Chargeman ’C’ Grade and the promotion of the said Govind  Sahai overlooking  seniority of  petitioner was liable to be quashed.      The Tribunal  while noticing the admitted position that prior to  1969, the  third  respondent  was  junior  to  the appellant found  from records  valid reasons for overlooking the claims of the appellant. The Tribunal after noticing the relevant factor observed as follows:-      Admitted position  is  that  Govind      Sahai  was   promoted  in  1969  as      Chargeman on  the reversion  of the      applicant  and  the  applicant  was      again promoted  in 1970  and he was      again reverted  and subsequently he      was promoted  in  1972.  Naturally,      Govind Sahai who was junior entered      the  Higher   grade  in   1969  and      continued   to   hold   the   same,      eventually the length of service of      higher grade  will have to counted.      It was not stop-gap arrangement but      it was  on the  action of reversion      of the  applicant that Govind Sahai      was  promoted.   The  promotion  of      Govind  Sahai  of  Higher  post  on      24.4.1976 is  also good  as he  was      holding the  post of  the Chargeman      from 1969 whereas the applicant was      holding the  post  from  1971.  So,      naturally,   Govind    sahai    was

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

    entitled for promotion earlier than      the applicant  and there is nothing      wrong in it."      It is  also seen  from the  records that as early as in 1976. The  representation made by the appellant to treat him as a  senior to  Govind Sahai  was rejected  by the  Railway Board in  their communication  no RB/OSD/ER/279/96/Aii dated 4.5.1976.  The   said  communication  inter  alia  reads  as follows:-      He  (the  appellant)  was  assigned      seniority with reference to date of      his joining  the  working  post  in      terms  of   orders   contained   in      Railway Board’s letter No. e(NG) 60      SR 6/2  of 16.11.1961  according to      which seniority  of direct recruits      and  rankers   in   the   vacancies      arising on  and after 16.11.1961 is      to be  fixed with  reference to the      date of joining the working post in      the case  of former and the date of      promotion in  the  case  of  latter      subject to  the condition  that the      inter se  seniority of the staff in      the   respective   group   is   not      disturbed. He was promoted to scale      Rs. 250-380  (A) with  effect  from      22.6.72 and  prior to  this he  was      promoted  twice  and  on  both  the      occasions he  was reverted  due  to      unsatisfactory work and accordingly      he lost  seniority over  those  who      were promoted  during the period he      was  not  considered  suitable  for      promotion.           (Emphasis supplied)      It is also seen from the records that the appellant was not successful  in challenging his earlier reversions. It is also  not   shown  that   the  appellant   has  successfully challenged the Railway Board’s communication dated 4.5.1976.      In spite of the above clear position, the appellant who appeared  in   person  repeatedly   argued  challenging  his reversions in  the year  1969 and 1971. We do not think that we can  entertain that  argument to  challenge the promotion give to  the third respondent, particularly, in the light of Railway Board’s  communication dated  4.53.76 in  which  the appellant  was   clearly  informed  that  he  has  lost  his seniority to said govind Sahai.      In the  circumstances, we  do not find any substance in the appeal  and the  same is dismissed accordingly. However, there will be order as to costs.