Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs R.B. Srivastava on 9 February, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.5664/2008
% Date of Decision: 09.02.2010
Union of India .... Petitioner
Through Mr.C.Mukund, Advocate
Versus
R.B. Srivastava .... Respondent
Through Mr.Jayant Bhushan, Sr.Advocate with
Ms.Meenu Mainee, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
W.P.(C) No.5664/2008
Rule D.B.
List in the category of "Regular Matters" at its turn.
CM No.10819/2008
The petitioner UOI through Secretary, Railway Board has sought
stay of impugned order dated 12th March, 2008 passed in OA No.
893/2005 whereby the petitioners have been directed to extend the
respondent benefits given in another decision of the Tribunal being OA
No. 945/1994, R. Khosla Vs. Union of India & Ors. and re-assign the
respondent's seniority along with the batch-mates of 1970 batch on
completion of four years apprenticeship and to grant all consequential
benefits.
According to the petitioners, as per Railway Board instructions
dated 12th December, 1962 and 10th April, 1070, it was mandatory for
SCRA to pass either Part-I and Part-II of CEI (London) or Section A & B
of AMIE (India) Examination within the said period of four years and the
apprentices were also required to pass semester examinations
conducted by the Indian Railway Institute of Mechanical and Electrical
Engineering, Jamalpur.
Petitioners' contention is that the apprentices were to be
appointed as probationers only on their passing in full either both the
parts of the AMIE (London) or Sections A & B of AMIE (India)
Examination. Further plea of the petitioners is that the respondent
cleared part I and five out of six papers of CEI (London) Examination at
the time of passing out from Jamalpur and remaining one paper of part
II of CEI (London) Examination was cleared on 7th February, 1977.
Since the respondent had not cleared the examination even
within the extended period as permissible, he was not entitled to be
continued as an apprentice and consequently not entitled to benefit of
seniority from the date of completion of apprenticeship after four years
and therefore, the respondent cannot be equated with the candidates
who have cleared the examination within the period permissible under
the rules.
According to the petitioner, in the circumstances, the order of the
Tribunal suffers from apparent error in applying the decision of
Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in case of other officers, as there is
reasonable classification between batches of 1969-71 and in the
circumstances according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there
is a good prima-facie case in favor of the petitioners. It is also contended
that the rule has already been issued in the writ petition and in the
circumstances, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it will be
just and appropriate to confirm the stay order already granted by this
Court.
The plea of the petitioner is contested by the respondent
contending, inter-alia, that the Tribunal has rightly held with the
reasoning given in R. Khosla's case and the seniority claimed by the
respondent could not be denied to him, as the respondent had qualified
Part-I of CEI (London) and also passed five out of six papers of CEI
(London) at the time of passing out from Jamalpur and even remaining
one paper of Part-II was qualified on 7th February, 1977. In the
circumstances, it is contended that there is no prima-facie case in favor
of the petitioners and the petitioners are not entitled for any interim
order in their favor.
In the writ petition, the Rule has already been issued and the
matter is to be decided after hearing the pleas and contentions of the
parties. By the order dated 12th March, 2008, the respondent was
directed to be given the benefit of the earlier case in OA No. 945/94, R.
Khosla Vs. UOI & Ors and re-assign his seniority along with his batch
mates of 1970 batch on completion of four years of apprenticeship.
In case, the order impugned by the petitioners is not stayed, the
respondent will have to be given the relief granted pursuant to the
impugned order and his seniority will also be re-assigned and the
consequential benefit will also be payable to him. However, in case, the
order impugned by the petitioners is set aside then, reverting the
seniority of the respondent and withdrawing all the benefits given to
him under R. Khosla's case will create complicity which may lead to
multiplicity of proceedings.
In case, the order is stayed and later on the writ petition is
dismissed, the respondent shall be entitled for all the benefits which are
granted pursuant to order dated 12th March, 2008 in OA No. 893/2005.
In the circumstances, the balance of convenience is in favor of the
petitioners as inconvenience caused to the petitioners shall be much
more, in case the operation of impugned order dated 12th March, 2008
in OA 893/2005 is not stayed.
By an interim order dated 6th August, 2008, the operation of the
order passed by the Tribunal has already been stayed. The respondent
though have filed the reply to the writ petition, however, the reply to the
application for interim stay has not been filed.
In the totality of facts and circumstances, it will be just and
appropriate and in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings to stay operation of order dated 12th March, 2008 passed in
OA No. 893/2008 and confirm the order dated 6th August, 2008 during
the pendency of the writ petition. Therefore, the impugned order dated
12th March, 2008 is stayed and the order dated 6th August, 2008 passed
in the present petition is confirmed during the pendency of the present
petition. The application is disposed of in terms hereof.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
February 9, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'rs'
