Chandra Chakraborty & Ors Vs. Union
of India & Ors  INSC 279 (10 May 1995)
Sujata V. (J) Manohar Sujata V. (J) Verma, Jagdish Saran (J) Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar,
1996 AIR 612 1995 SCC Supl. (3) 105 1995 SCALE (3)595
10TH DAY OF MAY,1995 Present:
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.
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
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
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 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.
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.
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
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.
4 to 23 challenged the selection of the appellants before the Tribunal on 15th
of December, 1992.
challenge has been upheld by the Tribunal.
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
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.