LexDIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY versus S. RAGHAVENDRACHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
J
DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN
RAILWAY
v.
S. RAGHAVENDRACHAR
December 16, I 96S
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO,
M. HmAYATULLAH, v. RAMASWAMI
anQ P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, IJ.]
A
B
Constitution of India, Art. 311(2)-Rtversion from o[ficialU.1 pon to
su'11tan1ive post loJ/Jen juniors officiating in higher post-Whether amounts
C
to reduction in rank.
The respondent was employed in the Southern
Railway
u Train
Euminer in the scale of Rs. 100-5-125-t>-185.
He was promoted 19
officiate in the next higher scale of Rs. 150-225.
Subsequently he was
rCTCned to the lower scale, and his depanmental
representations and
aj>peals having failed, he filed a writ petiuon under An. 226 of the Cooa-
Utution. The High Court held that the
reversion of the respondent
D
amounted to a reduction in ranl:. because he w .. reverted from the high..-
p<llt to the lower post notwithstanding the fact that his juniors were still
retained in the higher posts. As this reduction of ranl:. was in violation
of An. 311(2) the High Court granted the writ prayed for. The Divi-
sional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway appealed to this Court
by
opecia1 leave.
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the High Court had
E
milunderstood the ratio of the
judgment of this
Court in VaJJ:untMs
cue and that the respondent had not suffered
any reduction
in rank
within the meaning of Art. 311 (2).
HELD : ( i) 1be reversion of a Government servant from so olli-
ciating post to his substantive post, while his junior is officiating in hlgbtt
pail, does not, by itself, Constitute a reduction in ran\: within the mean-
ing of An. 311 (~I of the Coru>!irution. [I IO DJ
(ii) An important aspect of the decision in Vaikunthe's case was lost
sight of by the High Court. The real ground on which V aikunthe's re-
version to his origioal post of mamlatdar was held to be a violation of
hi" constitutional guarantee was that his chances of promotion were irr~
vocably barred for a period of three years.
There was no :1uch bar oo
promotion in the present case. [ 1 I 4 El
Madhav Lru:man Vaikunthe v. State of Mysore, [19621 1 S.C.R. 886.
<listinguishod.
{iii) The respondent's complaint was that he had lost his 9Clliority
hy reaaon of the retention of his juniors in the
officiating higher pool.
But his rank in the substantive post i.e. in the lower grade, was in no
way affected by this.
In the substantive grade the respondent retained
his nnt and \\'ac; not visited with any penal consequences. The respon-
dent had no right to the post to which he was provisionally promoted.
His reversion in these circumstances did not amount to reduction in
rant. (118 G-119 Al
F
G
II
•
•
1-
•
I
•
•
•
D. P. 0., s. RLY. V. RAGHAVENDRACHAR (Raju, J.)
107
A
Parshatam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, [19581 S.C.R. 828, SMI•
of Bombay v. F. A. Abraham, (19621 Supp. 2 S.C.R. 92 and The High
Court, Calcu~ta v. Amal Kumar Roy, [19631 1 S.C.R. 437, relied on.
ll
c
D
P. C. Wadhwa v. Union of India, (19641 4 S.C.R. 598, distinguished.
M. A. Waheed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [19541 Nag. L. J. 31t5,
referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 975 of
1964.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
December 12, 1962, of the Mysore High Court in W.P. No. 531
of 1961.
Bishan Narain, Naunit Lal and B.R.G.K. Achar, for
tAc
appellant.
S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the
respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
Satyauarayana Raju, J. This appeal, by special leave, raises a
somewhat important question of all, which is whether the teTer-
sion of a Government servant from an officiating post to his sub-
stantive post, while his junior is officiating in the higher post, does
1!:
11ot, by itself, constitute a reduction in rank within the meaning
of art. 311 (2) of the Constitution.
For the purpose of deciding the point raised in the appeal, it
would be necessary to state the material facts. 1k Southern
Railway has two grades of Train Examiners, one in the scale of
Rs. 100-5-125-6-185 and the other in the scale of Rs. 150-225.
F
The respondent was employed in the lower scale as a
Train
Examiner. By an order dated April 7, 1959, the respondent was
promoted to officiate in the higher scale with a starting salary ot
Rs. 150 per month.
That order read as follows :
G
H
"2. Sq S. Raghavendrachar, TXR·YPR in scale
Rs. 100-185 is promotedExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.