For Petitioners : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General
For Respondent : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
1. The present petition is being filed by the petitioners challenging
Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, in O.A. No.
835/2019. The impugned order is contrary to the settled principles
terminated by notice. The order of appointment in the
payment of salary in lieu thereof. Hence, the present petition
10.2 That this Hon'ble court may kindly
be pleased to set-aside the impugned
order dated 04.04.2025 passed by Ld.
Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A
No. 835 of 2019 (ANNEXURE P/1).
10.3 Cost of petition may also be
given."
2. The present case arises out of the engagement and subsequent
termination of the respondent as a Substitute Telephone and Dak
Khalasi (TADK) under the provisions of Establishment Rule No.
250/2010. As per Para 2 of Estt. Rule No. 250/2010, posts of
Telephone and Dak Khalasi are sanctioned for officers holding
posts in the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) and above, and
such officers are entitled to engage a TADK of their choice,
subject to fulfillment of the prescribed eligibility conditions and
availability of a vacant sanctioned post attached to the officer.
Pursuant thereto, the respondent applied for engagement as
TADK, and his application was considered by the competent
authority vide letter dated 13.08.2018. Thereafter, the respondent
was engaged as Substitute TADK vide letter dated 20.08.2018
and was attached to Shri Ramawatar Meena, Dy. CMM (DSL),
SECR/HQ/Bilaspur. The engagement letter specifically stipulated
in Para 2(iii) that in the event the concerned officer relinquishes
charge in South East Central Railway before the TADK completes
one year of continuous service, the services of the TADK shall
stand terminated unless any other eligible officer proposes to
retain him as his TADK. The respondent accordingly assumed
charge on 20.08.2018; however, the officer to whom he was
attached was subsequently promoted to the Senior Administrative
Grade (SAG) and transferred to Central Railway in terms of
Railway Board's letter dated 13.11.2018, pursuant to which he
was relieved from SECR vide letter dated 26.11.2018 and
relinquished charge on 27.11.2018. In accordance with Para 7 of
Estt. Rule No. 250/2010, which provides that an officer transferred
outside SECR may opt to take his TADK to the new place of
posting subject to the willingness of the TADK and acceptance by
the receiving Railway, both the officer and the respondent
requested for transfer of the respondent to Central Railway,
Mumbai. Accordingly, SECR addressed communications dated
13.12.2018 and 02.05.2019 to Central Railway seeking consent
for accommodating the respondent as Substitute TADK under the
said officer, while also indicating that in case such consent was
not received, termination proceedings would be initiated.
However, no response was received from Central Railway. Since
the respondent had not completed the minimum one year of
continuous service as required under Para 7.1 of Estt. Rule No.
250/2010 on the date the officer relinquished charge in SECR,
and no other officer proposed to retain him as TADK, the services
of the respondent were terminated vide letter dated 07.06.2019 in
accordance with the said rule. The provisions governing such
engagement also provide that the services of a substitute TADK
who has not completed three years of service may be terminated
administratively without assigning any reason and without
following disciplinary proceedings, subject to one month's notice
or pay in lieu thereof, as contemplated under Para 9 of Estt. Rule
No. 250/2010 and the relevant provisions contained in Para 301
of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol.-I and Para 1502 of
the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Vol.-I relating to
termination of temporary railway servants. Aggrieved by the
termination of his services, the respondent filed O.A. No.
835/2019 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur
Bench, and the Railways filed their reply therein. The learned
Tribunal, vide order dated 04.04.2025, allowed the said O.A. and
directed that if the concerned officer is still willing to attach the
respondent as TADK, the respondents shall consider his
appointment as TADK by granting continuity of past service but
without back wages, which has given rise to the filing of the
present petition challenging the said order.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
impugned order passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal (CAT), Jabalpur Bench, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to
the settled principles of service jurisprudence as well as the
statutory framework governing the engagement and termination of
Substitute Telephone and Dak Khalasis (TADK) under the Railway
Establishment Rules. It is contended that the Tribunal failed to
properly appreciate the provisions of Establishment Rule No.
250/2010, particularly Para 7.1 thereof, which clearly stipulates
that where a TADK has not completed a minimum of one year of
continuous service on the date the concerned officer relinquishes
charge in the South East Central Railway (SECR), the services of
such TADK shall be terminated unless any other officer proposes
to retain him as his TADK. Learned counsel submits that the
respondent was engaged purely on a temporary and substitute
basis vide appointment letter dated 20.08.2018 and was attached
to the officer Shri Ramawatar Meena, Dy. CMM (DSL),
SECR/HQ/Bilaspur, and the terms of engagement expressly
provided in Para 2(iii) that if the concerned officer relinquished
charge before the respondent completed one year of continuous
service, the services of the respondent would automatically stand
terminated unless any other officer proposed to continue him as
TADK. It is further submitted that the said officer was
subsequently transferred and relieved from SECR on 27.11.2018,
by which time the respondent had admittedly not completed the
mandatory period of one year of continuous service, and no other
eligible officer had proposed to retain him as TADK; therefore, in
strict compliance with Para 7.1 of Establishment Rule No.
250/2010, the services of the respondent were terminated vide
order dated 07.06.2019, which cannot be said to suffer from any
illegality or arbitrariness. Learned counsel further submits that the
applicable statutory provisions governing termination of temporary
railway servants, namely Para 301 of the Indian Railway
Establishment Code, Vol.-I and Para 1502 of the Indian Railway
Establishment Manual, Vol.-I, clearly provide that a temporary
employee holding no lien on a permanent post has no vested right
to continue in service and his services may be terminated in
accordance with the prescribed notice conditions, and that such
termination does not attract disciplinary proceedings where the
termination is in accordance with the contractual and statutory
terms of appointment. It is also contended that, in the present
case, the petitioners had acted fairly and in good faith by
addressing communications dated 13.12.2018 and 02.05.2019 to
Central Railway seeking consent for accommodating the
respondent as Substitute TADK under the said officer who had
been transferred there; however, despite repeated requests, no
response was received from the Central Railway authorities,
leaving the petitioners with no alternative but to proceed with
termination of the respondent's engagement in accordance with
the governing rules. Learned counsel further submits that the
Tribunal failed to consider that the respondent's appointment was
purely temporary and co-terminus with the tenure of the officer to
whom he was attached and, therefore, no enforceable right
accrued in his favour to claim continuation or reinstatement. In
support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs.
Kaushal Kishore Shukla (JT 1991 (1) SC 108), wherein it has
been categorically held that a temporary Government servant has
no right to hold the post and his services are liable to be
terminated in accordance with the terms of the contract or the
relevant statutory rules by giving the prescribed notice without
assigning any reason. It is thus submitted that the learned
Tribunal erred in interfering with a lawful administrative action
taken strictly in accordance with the governing rules and binding
judicial precedents, and the impugned order is therefore liable to
be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned
order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal does
not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference
by this Court. Learned counsel contends that the termination of
the respondent's services was arbitrary and mechanical, without
properly considering the surrounding circumstances and the fact
that the respondent was willing to continue as TADK with the
same officer who had been transferred to Central Railway. It is
further submitted that the respondent had been engaged after due
consideration by the competent authority and had been
discharging his duties satisfactorily, and therefore the abrupt
termination of his services, without making genuine efforts to
accommodate him or to secure a response from the concerned
Railway administration, was unjust and unfair. Learned counsel
argues that the Tribunal, after considering the material placed on
record, rightly directed the authorities to consider the respondent
for appointment as TADK in case the concerned officer is still
willing to attach him, while denying back wages, thereby
balancing the equities between the parties. It is thus contended
that the order passed by the Tribunal is reasonable, equitable and
within its jurisdiction, and therefore the present petition filed by the
retitioners deserves to be dismissed.
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties at considerable length and have carefully gone through the
pleadings and documents placed on record along with the present
petition.
6. From a bare perusal of the record, it appears that while setting
aside the order of termination in respect of the respondent, the
learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has directed the
petitioners, i.e., the Railway authorities, that in the event the
attachment of the respondent is required and if the concerned
officer is willing to take the services of the respondent, the
petitioners shall consider the respondent for appointment as
Telephone and Dak Khalasi (TADK) by granting him the benefit of
continuity of past service. The learned Tribunal has further
directed that in the event the respondent is taken back in service
as TADK with continuity of past service, he shall not be entitled to
any back wages. The petitioners herein, who were respondents
before the learned Tribunal, were further directed to undertake the
aforesaid exercise and take a decision in respect of the
respondent's services within a period of 90 days from the date of
receipt of a copy of the order.
7. On a careful reading of the impugned order, it is evident that no
specific adverse direction has been issued against the present
petitioners. The learned Tribunal has only directed the petitioners
to consider the case of the respondent in accordance with the
applicable rules and subject to the exigencies of service,
particularly in the event the concerned officer is willing to attach
the respondent as TADK. The Tribunal has not issued any
absolute direction for reinstatement, nor has it granted any
monetary benefits such as back wages. Rather, the Tribunal has
balanced the equities by leaving it open for the competent
authorities to take an appropriate decision regarding the
attachment or engagement of the respondent in accordance with
the governing rules and administrative requirements.
8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is a reasoned order
which merely directs the competent authorities to consider the
matter in accordance with the relevant rules and the exigencies of
service. The directions issued by the learned Tribunal do not
impose any mandatory liability upon the petitioners beyond
requiring them to examine the claim of the respondent and pass a
reasoned decision. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground
to entertain the present petition or to interfere with the impugned
order passed by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has
already passed a well-considered order, which does not call for
any interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
9. Accordingly, without interfering with the impugned order, the
petitioners are directed to comply with the directions issued by the
learned Central Administrative Tribunal and to take an appropriate
decision in respect of the respondent's claim regarding his
attachment or engagement, strictly in accordance with the
relevant rules and keeping in view the exigencies of service,
within the period stipulated by the Tribunal, by passing a reasoned
and speaking order.
10. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge Judge
Shayna
