Madras High Court
A. Natarajan vs The Chief Administrative Officer on 28 October, 2022
W.A.No.2002 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
Writ Appeal No.2002 of 2019
and CMP No. 13538 of 2019
A. Natarajan ..Appellant
Vs.
1. The Chief Administrative Officer,
(Constructions), Southern Railway,
Egmore, Chennai 8.
2. The Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal,
Cum-Labour Court, Chennai. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the
order passed by this Court dated 12.04.2019 passed in W.P.No.2873of 2013.
For Appellant : Mr.L.Chandrakumar
For Respondents : Mr.V.Radhakrishnan,
Senior Counsel
for Ms.T.P.Savitha
R2 - Tribunal
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2002 of 2019
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The appellant is aggrieved by the order in the Writ Petition, the
challenge in which was to the order of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai, made in ID No.12 of 2011.
2. The appellant was appointed as a Bungalow Lascar in the
Bungalow of the Deputy Chief Engineer, Gauge Conversion, Southern
Railway, Tiruchirapalli with effect from 16.06.2005. The appointment was
subject to several conditions. The appointment orders specifically stated
that the appointment is only as a substitute and the appointee will have no
claim for permanent status of a Railway employee. Upon completion of
120 days of continuous service, the appellant would be treated as a
Temporary Railway Servant. The appointment order also provided that his
services could be dispensed with at any time, if his service is found
unsatisfactory by the officer concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2002 of 2019
3. On 14.10.2005 an order of termination was issued stating that
the services of the appellant has been found to be unsatisfactory and he was
unauthorisedly absent from 12.09.2005, the termination was to take effect
from 12.09.2005. This termination was challenged by the appellant before
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in Industrial Dispute (ID) No.12
of 2011, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal allowed the ID, set
aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement. Aggrieved the
Railways came up with the Writ Petition in WP No.2873 of 2013.
4. The Writ Court found that the petitioner having not completed
120 days of continuous service is not entitled to the benefits available to a
temporary railway employee. The Writ Court also found that the order of
termination on the ground that the services are unsatisfactory issued within
the period of 120 days cannot be considered to be one casting a stigma on
the petitioner. The claim of the appellant that he would be entitled to a
month's notice as per the appointment order as a temporary railway servant
was also rejected by the Writ Court. Aggrieved, the appellant is before us.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2002 of 2019
5. We have heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant and Mr.V.Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel
instructed by Ms.T.P.Savitha for the respondent.
6. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant would submit that even as per the appointment order, the appellant
is entitled to notice as the administration is bound to observe the conditions
applicable to substitute/temporary service. It is very clear from the
conditions that it will be open to the administration to terminate the services
of the petitioner at any time, if it is found unsatisfactory. The appellant has,
admittedly, not completed 120 days of service on the date when his services
were terminated. Therefore, he would not be entitled to the privileges
allowed to a temporary railway servant. The appellant is only a substitute
employee as on the date of termination.
7. The Writ Court has considered this aspect and has rejected the
contention of the petitioner relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Kunwar Arun Kumar v. U.P.Hill Electronics
Corporation Ltd & Others, reported in 1997 (2) SCC 191, wherein the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2002 of 2019
Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that termination of a probationer by
observing that the services are not satisfactory would not cast a stigma on
the probationer. The Writ Court has rightly concluded that the petitioner
being a substitute employee would not be entitled to the privileges attached
to a temporary railway servant.
8. On facts we find that the petitioner has not acquired the status
of temporary railway servant and he was not entitled to notice or an enquiry
before termination. We do not see any error in the order of the Writ Court,
so as to enable us to interfere with the conclusions of the Writ Court,
excepting to observe that the Writ Court has not adverted to the fact that the
termination is one with retrospective effect from 12.09.2005. It is settled
position of service law that no termination can be retrospective. Therefore,
the termination could only be from the date of the order of termination,
namely 14.10.2005. The petitioner therefore would be entitled to the salary
for the period between 12.09.2005 and 14.10.2005.
9. In view of the above, the Writ Appeal is partly allowed, the
order of termination would take effect from 14.10.2005 instead of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2002 of 2019
12.09.2005, petitioner would be entitled to salary for the period between
12.09.2005 and 14.10.2005. In other respects the order of the Writ Court is
confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) (K.KUMARESH BABU, J.)
28.10.2022
Index: No
Internet: Yes
speaking order
jv
To
1. The Chief Administrative Officer,
(Constructions), Southern Railway,
Egmore, Chennai 8.
2. The Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal,
Cum-Labour Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2002 of 2019
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
(jv)
Writ Appeal No.2002 of 2019
and CMP No. 13538 of 2019
28.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
