_ E-
IN THIS HIGH COURT OF KARN,/\'1'A.KA AT BANGALORE'.
DATED THIS THE 3155"" DAY OF DECEMBER, 20
PRESENT
THE I--IONBLE MRJUSTICE V.G.SABI-ig_1.§I.I'I"'»V:' A.
AND
THE HONBLE MRSJUSTICE
WRIT PETITION No.s3--7é of 2(§0;1{S§'CAT1
BETWEEN:
SR1 RAMAREKHA '
S/O. GHAMUPRASAD " '
AGED ABOU'I'31A--YEA1?.S
SUBSTITUTE EVLMERGIZNCY _ --
WHEEL AND AXLE PLm\'n'?'-~ " '-
YELAHANKA * = "
BANGALOREm56CiAQ64~_ '_ '
. V. PETITIONER
(By:.'fSf:';» .PRAi}E:E1~1 KUMARH RA:K0TE, ADV.)
AND :
'V _m:«: {jN1o..N'oF*{ND1z\
_ H R1129 BY §'FS';.SECY
'V . '---§;A1LwAY''£30ARD
NEW [}~EE.HI
A' ' __ " 911-1£_; GENERAL MANAGER
" 'WI-i1ZEL AND AXLE? PLAN'1'
V V ' ' * A " 7YI3LAHANKA
" " "I23,A.NGAE,ORE ~ 560 064
:13 SR1 SE'E'ARAi.\/I
CI--{REF Mra:c1~~£AN1cAL, [:1NGINEI't3R
W'I'"iI*2I-BIL AND PLAN'1'
YI::1.A1~:ANKA
E3A.NGAl..OR{§ A 560 064
gig, M,
i-..3
4 SR} D NARASIMHAN
ASST. PERSONNEL OFFECER
'WHEEL AND AXLE PLANT
YEILAEIANKA
BANGALORE W 560 064
1/06/10] '
{RI IS E) ELETEI) VIDE COURT ORDER DA%E';3 .
.. ._ RE sé>_ov1x:DENI's-. . "
[By S1-i: N S SANJAY GOWDA E_f_ci5'152:R:2¢4, E1 DE3v1i§E'I'E3D
V/0 DATED 1/O6/10). V V '
THIS WP IS FILED U':\IDEi:::" 226 AND 227
OF THE coNsT1mT1oN~0_E 1'ND_1_A PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGN}':1D*«Q__RDE;:R ESY. ,1gV,i2oo2 VIDE ANNWI-1.
*rH1s%'i3E_j*1rf1"Oé4 B'E:11\3G' RiES'ERv'ED AND COMING ON
FOR PRoN.Q'iJN(;E1\¢ENT-- ~ O__F ,%0RDERs THIS DAY,
NAGAI{ATEL'\V¥i J., ":§DEL:~VERED 'THE FOLLOWING ;«
* «
Thi:'VéV'D«wA::ivi_ filed against the order dated
15.33.2003 1§a'saeg_: ____ __m O.A.N0.15O/03 by the Central
.A(}mi::i,stra.iiVe.'.I'ribur1a1. Bangalore (he:rei1'1aI't'£:1' 1'<'afe:'red to as
2. The ;_)L'aje:.j't.i011e1" in this writ pe1:i1.i0n had flied the original
V'~.,z1pp1ic'a£'.i_Aén before the t,ribur1ai .=3e<::k1'1'1g quashing of the order
7.£2.2002 and a dire.<:t1'cm. in the authoritms E0
" rL}'instat'@ mm with full back-wa.ges along with (:<)1'1t.i1'1L11't.y of
k
x"
'S
W_1W
service as a group 'D' employee. The tribunal after hearing
both sides had dismissed the application. HE§iiC:é'.gT't.lf1€
applicant has preferred this writ petition.
3. According to the petitioner. he \vas_.a_p_poi1it_.edlast'
Substitute Emergency Peon by.__olrder--.dated'2$_l8. 19397 in the
pay scale of Rs.750»--9fil(..)il"a't Axle Plant at
Yalahanka, after__he ii1ideryizent' aA1:if1eelical'eXan1ination which
was pursuant to '---order dated.._4*;S:.V.lV9Q77; He was posted
against an__. Mechanical Department
and he joined ':'d.£i;i,y at Since he had completed
120 days of'vcent.ir§1,1oL1's'sewice,"lie was granted temporary
status z\}'«"'it'l'l«. ef1eeVt'fr_orii'5?._:'7';.1l.2--;1997. He was also issued the
benefits olfsproyidentl i7txiad:_:and other leave benefits, as well as
t,he4p'1'ivilege of, travelling in second class in the Railways.
a"'Acc0rdi*n'g "tie; the petitioner. lie was working continuotisly
£"roni .i99.7u_:i::ill he was discharged from service by notice
7._1.2V;e:2pQt;)2. Being aggrieved by the order of discharge.
the p€l'll§_O11CF preferred the original application contending
2 that__ he should liave been absorbed as a Group 'D' employee
"'l._ia1tvi.'i'ig regaid to his l€I1gl.h of service 1111.311'; 28.4.1997 upto
l' = 12.2002 for abotit five years as si.1l:)stit,L1te eiiiergencgy peon.
That. he liacl also at,teti.ded. the screer1i1'ig.g test and was
V./
_.X
_5_
period of six months. Thereafteiwards, the performance
reports were in favour of the petitioner. However. the1-'elw_as
no second screening done and though _
recommendation for his absor'ptio'nii.'ilinto serv*iee--..p
7.11.2002. nevertheless he \*}aS--._Vdiseh'ariged ireh¥..1.'ee,mee age
5.12.2002. it is contended entirelplvaetivon of the
respondents as against'«tl"Le_ Apeti.tViovne'r_Vpis:illegal and arbitrary
and therefore, the ‘appreciated the
case of the sought by him.
It is of the tribunal may be to the petitioner.
6|: i>Ae-:2V_e’eeire,.ii:–§e-eiiegeeitied on behalf of the respondent-
Railways thuatithevappointrnent of the petitioner itself was on
a ternpo’rafypbasisV”lthat it was subject to certain terms and
=5nevu_of which was that the petitioner was liable to
at any time and that he had no right to his
emplogzirient as such. He has further submitted that when
th_e’a”petitioner was found to be unsuitable for the job, the
raiiways rightly discontinued his services on the ground of
unsuitabiiity and that the tribunal has rightly appreciated
the case of the respondent and has dismissed the application
filed by the petitioner which order does not call for any
4}”
i11t.er1’ei’ence. He. therefore. submits that the writ. petition
may be dismissed.
7. It is also necessary” to note the’: by “oi”def
10.8.2005. this court ha.d di;Fec–t.ed the Af.f)epVai°tmeiii:,x*
to produce the original records iiiolotiing th’t«1’K’€’}.}OI.”t’vi§()’f the 3”?
respondent dated 7. a~eC0f(Eing1y, the original
records have been madeA..aVai1ah1_e to the ooi_irt.
8. Having heard the cot1n.se«1_’~on “both sides and on
perusai of ti’1e”‘mé£t.e1V*ia’i .or_i_ :’r*=’:_C0=i’d;–«’the only point that arises
for ()uIf..tCQI1’VSiC1.€1;£’i?;_iQ11.._i’S.__.é1S” to_whethe1* the order of the
_ _ 22;,-iii’. p 2
tribunal 1s_”L1st’*ro er. ”
–. J ‘§j_,W.____».
9. F”rof13.__tI’:e 15ei”t1sa’i.oi7 material on record. it is not in
c1isp3i::itei’tha1t’: het.itio1iei* was appointed as a substitute
.éI11,€I’gCvl1Cy-p.€OI1 against a clear vacancy in the Mechanical
17)e’2;.3ai’tVi’i1e’i1I’;__ Wheel & Axle Plant at Bangalore and he
\Va2s’—-a1ttv+;1.ehe’6i to the third respondent. The appointment was
oi’f€’;’edV’i{)’i1 4.8.1997 and it was ei’fect.iVe from 288.1997.
’71_’l’i’a1t:”()r1 <;:ompleti0I1 of 120 days oi' coiitiimoiis service he was
= g5§iV'€I1 the 1.{':'31'I1}3()}.'£1I'y status with effect, from 27.12.1997 and
he was ooi1I'e1"1"e(1 (3€}"1,21i.l'.l p1'i.vi1e_:_§es. The question is whether
-7-
the petitioner was erititleci to be absorbed on a pe1’m.ane11t.
basis after completion of three years of S€i”ViC_€”~_iVfi~, the
teiaiporary status. The said three yea1.”.S._DI” se’r\:-‘iee’iX{eLiltl_Vl_li.avee 0
been completed on 3.8.2000. The ;’1’e,s’ipof1de’nt’
screened immediately after the’-._e11d of ti”:1fee”VyeAa1llll.b.200l and was declared
to be uhsaitable..lyylie_0jVvfas~eoritiiiued in service. but there was
no second0ls’e1f_eei1iiig0’oi’the petitioner after the end of six
*9
«–.yAmoi1tll1s_A—from 3l.5§2’uuI. He was in fact, aliowed to continue
in 12.2002 on which date the petitioner was
tenfiinateti’~ifi’ohi S€1’ViCC. On a perusal of the material on
record. ‘as per Aru1exu1’e~D it becomes clear that on
-‘3V00.5′–..200l, it was clearly stated that the petitioner was not
reeoiiiinezided for the present and his perfo1~manee needs to
be watched for six months. “thereafter the petitioner
eont.iii’uec£ to be in service. In fact. the o1’ig;ii1al records reveal
that on 61.1.2002. 21 letter was issued by the office of the
Chief Personnel Ollleei’ stating that the petitioiier was eligible
xi
ii
2,.»
9/.
-3-
to be screened for his absorption in 1-eguiar group ‘D’ service
as he had comp1e{ed three years of service and it:-i§vo_s:”-«ziiso
directed that his working report. be enc1ose.;f—
further E’£Cf.§OI}. We have pe1’usec_i..a,_copy’ of” ixrorlcing VV
report dated 7.1 1.2002 and 1h e’o;3n1e ‘is.extracieolhcreurider: –. VL
Sub: Working report Rekha Prasad
1. Name
2- D93iQnaiiQV”i: ‘V Emergency Peon
3. Date of f 2«é§oo8.2oo7
4.
ii}_Co11d1’L ‘Cé : Good
I{f,) ‘:I’ e:fT.i’/7,De’.Af’3?71er1’Vi”” “”” : Good
_ iv]’Gé’rrero.iobei’1oviour : Good
‘ Ar;}”‘VP’er}”or’n5,_orrice s1’nce_ joined : Overall Good Performance
L212) A;)l:ii’;.t.dVe’]or work : Good
U vii)L’?~2elatio11s}1ip with his
‘ srrpervrsors and other
“E co–work(3rs. : Good
35. Recommenclations to
consider himfor granting
leI7’1p()rC1f1 1 si’ai”us : Reoonmlendedjor granting
temporary status.
Sci/ ~
Name & Designation. of
M L; m
The Qfficer
Sita Ram
CME ”
10. On a perusal of the Said re-:po1″‘t.A~°it its ‘seen VVi»h’3ttu:::é1:
I’€COI]1II1€I).d£1UOI1 had been 11ia_d’e_V in favour oi’_t.he ‘petVtttoner 2 L’
and correspondence was vvvj’3)etit.io11e1*
vide letter dated 6.} that he had
completed th1’ee__years .o.§:._se1’t;i.Vee_’ eligible to be
Screened for ~D~ Sewica
However, was terminated from
service!” to peruse two
other written by the Personal
Departvmenttid'”o1fVVtt1e”V*.Ge’;1eré.1 Manager’s office. Wheel 8;: Axle
;_QneA1et’,t.ei”‘i’:asV been addressed to one Sri. Rakesh
“w’het’ehe1′ he reqtlired the services of th.e
[..)’€’t’:i’.tiVi’Ol1€’I’.’ttitijfitz had been attetcthed to the third respondent.
Sri.Seethg11’a1111. The said officer has stated that”; he did not
\rtrish–..&t;o have the pet.it.ioner attached to him. On the same
day. attother letter was written to the t;hi1*d respondent.
Sri.Seet,l1a1’an1 who has also stated that he was not wi1li1’1§.f to
have the services of the petit.ioner. ‘File reason for writing
the afo1’esa:’d 1.et,t:.ers was b€3.CE1E,ES€ Sr1′.Seet1.1a1’an1 had been
t,I’é:1.l’1SfC’.1’1′(;'(‘1 arld t.1’1ereI”ore. it was neeesszwy to find out as to
5’?
is
E,
/r
.,§(}.,
whom the petitioner had to be attached. When the niatter
stood thus, by order dated 5.12.2002, the petition:er*ti:4ttrasV.
terminated from service. From the aforesaid m7a._tervijal..V0’what’i 0′
becomes appa1’e}:1t is that initia1ly;”whe_n
found to be unsuitable and ‘;izas.r..perrnitted. totribeflpconrtinued 2 0′
for a period of six months at the months,
no performance r6P0r{~.,.ii?’aS neither was he
screened for the second. only because,
Sri.Seetharani_.:v 00 Bangalore to another
place and the interested in having the
senaces oi the.’.pet_i:tioner,”~td_es_piteWthere being a good report
with re§’§a.rd”i’.o of duties, the services of the
petitioner \Aras..Vterrninated when in November 2002 action.
. 0°-wa”s~– init.ia.te”clto absibfb the petitioner as a regular Group ‘D’
” tvwexiind that this aspect of the matter has not
been considei’ed by the tribunal. From the original records,
it becorntes clear that there has been no opportunity given to
l”:t’_thet'”petitioner to be screened and in order to find out his
0 suitability for the purpose of his discharging his duties. Also
the reliance placed on the screening held on 31.5.2001 in
the Notice dated 17.12.2002 {Annexnre»A 11) is wholly
misplaced as the petitioner was continued for a further paid
of six months from the said date. Hence, we find that the
M1411′
order of the tribtmal upholding the cliseliarge 0f___ the
petitioner from his duties is not in accordance with” tV}’1e_”‘i’2;eLtus
borne out from the records as well as the erititliemerit’ V’
petitioner to be screened. Under thee Cii’CLz:’11st.e{i1eesfivevset V
aside the order of the tribuna.1:*.&asd_’_Aiwe}1:*.g1S’
WAP/NG/TO 145 dated 7.1__2:.’§;oo2._e_ pa.é’sed__by_E the 402
respondent and allow We direct the
respondent authoritiesiitovreinetdte_ with 50%
backwages Vdabeorption as a group
‘D’ empiogtee report dated
7.1l.21t)vO.’Z’V .. eeepolident Sri. Seetharam.
The 1’e:sxAp’our1deVnt’ consider the same within a
periodof t;vt/o I.t1o12tv§’1s .1″-_ror’1″.1 the date of receipt of the certified
Vt’ , eof}y.{oi7..,thisi– order.’ VC”)”r’dered accordingly.
Sdffifl
hdge
Sdii-5?
it Ezdéé