Bombay High Court
Union Of India Thr.Secr.New Delhi ... vs Pramod Kumar Gupta on 22 November, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
911-J-WP-5961-05 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.5961 OF 2005
1. Union of India,
Thr. The Secretary,
Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhavan, New Delhi.
2. Union of India, through
General Manager, South East
Central Railway, Bilaspur.
3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
South East Central Railway, Nagpur.
4. South East Central Railway,
through its Divisional Railway Manager,
Kingsway, Nagpur. ... Petitioners.
-vs-
Pramod Kumar Gupta,
aged about 40 years, Loco Pilot (Passenger)
Gr.II, R/o Flat No.209, Kilashpati Apartment,
Kamptee Road, Opp. Yugantar Mahila Vidyalaya,
Nagpur 440017. ... Respondent
Shri N. P. Lambat, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri S. Sanyal, Advocate for respondent.
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI &
V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : November 22, 2016
Oral Judgment (Per B. R. Gavai, J.)
The petitioner-Railways has approached this Court being
aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 04/07/2005 by which the
911-J-WP-5961-05 2/3
learned Tribunal held the respondent eligible to be considered for the post of
Loco Inspector and directed the petitioner to consider him for the said post if
he cleared the said test.
2. The respondent-employee was originally appointed as Diesel Assistant
on 22/07/1988. He was promoted to the post of Goods Driver on
22/08/1995. He was thereafter drafted as Chief Power Controller on
10/12/1998 and continued on the said post till 03/03/2005 and was
thereafter promoted as Passenger Driver on 09/04/2001.
3. A notification came to be issued on 27/07/2004 and modified on
15/12/2004 calling for applications for the post of Loco Inspector. The
original applicant appeared for the said. However, his application came to
be rejected on the ground that the applicant had not completed three years
on Foot Plate.
4. Shri N. P. Lambat, learned counsel for the petitioner-Railways
submitted that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in allowing the original
application. The learned Tribunal after taking into consideration Circular
No.190/92 found that three years foot plate experience for driver was not
provided in either Regulation of 1992 or 1998. It was further found that the
reliance on Circular dated 27/07/2004 by the respondent Railways therein
911-J-WP-5961-05 3/3
was not sustainable in law. The learned Tribunal further found that in the
light of instructions dated 25/11/1992 and 16/05/1996 and RBE dated
09/01/1998 and 24/02/1998 which specifically provided that the Drivers
who were drafted as Loco Inspectors will continue to progress in the running
cadre and will be subjected to all the terms and conditions of services as
applicable to running staff. It was therefore found that the original applicant
who was working in the Control Room as Goods Driver and later as Chief
Power Controller will not make the applicant ineligible for consideration to
the post of Loco Inspector.
5. It can thus be seen that the view taken by the learned Tribunal is upon
interpretation of the relevant regulations issued by the petitioner-Railways.
We do not notice any perversity in the impugned order warranting
interference. The petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Asmita
