ARUN KUMAR CHATTERJEE versus SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY & ORS.

Citation: [1985] 3 S.C.R. 18 · Decided: 01-03-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A· 
ll 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
ff 
18 
ARUN KUMAR CHATTERJEE 
v. 
SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY & ORS. 
March I, 1985 
[A. P. SEN AND D. P. MADON JJ.,] 
Civ ii S.ervfce 
(J) Railway Establishment Manual, Rule 312 read with Railway Board's 
Circular No. 1565A-Seniority of Railway Servants on Transfer-How to be 
fixed. 
(2) Words and Phrases-uOfficlating'' and "Temporary"-Meaning 
of-" Officiating" does not include temporary staff, 
Rule 312 of the Railway Establishment Manual provides that senio· 
rity of railway servants transferred on their own request from one railway 
to anoth~r should be allowed below that of 1he existing confirmed/officiating 
railway servants in the relevant grade. 
To t xp!ain thG purport and effect 
of r, 312, the Railway Board' issued a Circular No. 1565A dated January 
31, 1950 which provided that on transfer at the employee's own request 
his position should be at the bottom of the seniority 1.jst of all permanent 
employees of his grade, if he is permanent and at the bottom of the whole 
Ji~t of permanent and temporary employees if he is temporary. 
The Rail .. 
way. Board's subsequent Circular dt. 31st Dec. 1966 sought to clarify that 
the term 'officiating' in Rule 312 includes temporary staff as well. 
The appellant, who was holding a substantive post of a clerk in the 
Northern Eastern Railway was transferred on October 15, 1958 on his own 
request to the South Eastern Railway and was posted at the Scaldah 
Division. 
He was howe"\ler placed below the temporary staff) namely, 
respondents 7 to 45 in the seniority list of the cte1ks in the Sealdah Division 
prepared by 
tho;l 
respondent-Southern Eastern 
Railway 
in 1967. After 
rejection of his two 
representations in the year 1967 and a remi· 
ndcr to the Chief Personnel Officer dated December 21, 1973 against 
the wrong fixation of his inter·se seniority, he filed a writ petition in the 
High Court on 30th April 1975 challenging the said seniority list. 
The 
Jearnt>d Single Judge held that in pursuance of Rule 312, the relevant senio-
rity of the appellant was governed by the Railway Board',,, Circular No. 
1S65A and not-hy its subsequent Circular dated December 31, 1966, and 
ordered the Railway Administration to refix his seniority below all perman,. 
', / 
~:.J 
( 
A. k. Cl!ATTERJEE v. SOUTI! EASTERN RLY 
19 
ent and officiating clerks o'n the date of his transfer in the Sealdah Division, 
but above the temporary clerks in that Division with consequential benefits. 
On appeal by the respondent the Division Bench upheld the view of the 
learned single Judge butJ observed that due to ioordi.nate delay on the part 
of the appellant in moving the c;ourt, there was no justification for inter· 
fering with the promotions already made of respondents no. 7 to 45 and 
ordered that he should be placed immediately below the remaiQing respon-
dents. 
Allowing the appeal, 
l!)lLD : (I) It would appear from the facts that there. was no delay, 
much less inordinate delay, on the part of the appellant in filing the 
petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the l'rotection of his right 
as to 
inter~se seniority. 
In fact, he had made three representations in the 
matter but without any redress. [22E·F] 
(2) There can be no doubt on the terms of r. 312 of the Manual read 
with Railway Board's Circular No. !565A dated January 31, 1950 that the 
appellant had to be placed below all fhe existing confirmed aud officiating 
A 
18 
c 
staff in the relevant grade, irrespr.ctive of the date .of bis confirmation Or 
D 
the length of his service. 
He was not governed by the Railway Board's 
Cir.cular dated December 31, 1966 on the date of his transfer. [Z31!; 24A] 
(3) According to the ordinary connotation, the word 'officiating' is 
generally used when a servant having held one post permanently or subst. 
antively, is appointed to a post in a higher rank, but not permanently or 
substantively, while still retaining his lien on his substantive post i.e. 
officiating in that post till his confirmation. 
Io contrast, the word 
rtCmpor~ 
ary' usually denotes a -person appointed in the civil service for the first 
time 
and the 
appointment is not permanent 
but 
temporary i.e. 
for the time being, with no right to the post. 
Therefore, the Rail way 
Board'sinterpretation in the aforesaid Circular dated December 31 1 1966 of 
the 'C'fficiating' in r. 312 of the Railway Establishment Manual, as inclu~ 
ding both ofllciatiog as well as temporary staffJ was apparently w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.