LexGENERAL MANAGER, NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY versus SACHINDRA NATH SEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH EAST FRONTIER
B
(;
D
E
F
G
H
RAILWAY
v.
SACHINDRA NATH SEN
August 22, 1969
(J. C. SHAH, ACTING C.J., V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N.
GROVER,
JJ.]
Indian Railway Establishment Code, Rules 14B and 149 Held invalid
by Supreme Court as violative of Art. 311 (2) of ;_lie Constitution of India
-Railway Board deciding that only employees wh.1se services were tern1i·
nated under said Rules within a period of six ,vears before Supreme Court
judg1nen1 would be reinstated-Validity of lilnit of rix )'ears.
The services of the respondent as an Assistant Traffic Superintendent
on the North East Frontier Railway \vere terminated after one month's
notice under Rule 148 of the Indian Raih\'av Estab.1\shment Code with
effect from De<:<mber 2, 1957. An appeal to the Deneral Manager was
held not to be competent. On being offered a lower post the respondent
accepted it. By Jetter dated December 31, 1959 he was informed that his
regresentation to the Railway Board had been rejected.
On December 5,
1963 this Court in Moti Ram Deka's case held that Rules 148(3) and
149(3) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code we;e invalid being vio-
lative of Art. 111(2) of the Constitution. The respondent made a repre-
sentation in 1964 to the General Manager for reconsideration of his case
in the light of the said judgment.
The representation was turned down
on the ground that the Railway Board had decided to n1instate only those
employees whose services had been terminated in terms of Rule~ 148/ 149
within a period of six years prior to the. date of the Supn'me Court's judg~
ment. The respondent filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitutior
which was allowed by the High Court. The General Man.1ger appealed.
HELD : Tue fixing of a period of six years was on the face of it arl:?i~
trary and there was no valid or reasonable explanation as tli why this limit
was fixed by the railway authorities.
If the termination of service of an
employee in terms of Rule 148 was wholly illegal and v.Jid because of
violation of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution, his reinstatement should have
followed as a matter of course. The contention that the raihvay authorities
would have found a lot of difficulty and inconvenience in reinstating em~
ployees without taking into consideration the period which had elapsed was
devoid of merit and could not be accepted. [67 F-G]
Moti Ram Deka etc. v. General Manager, N.E.F. Railwais etc. [1964]
5 S.C.R. 683, applied.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION; Civil App~al No. 1839·of
19M.
·
Appeal by spe,cial lea\e from the judgment and dtcree dated
February 16, 1967 of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in
Civil Rule 2 of 1965.
V. A. Seyid Muham,Md and S. P. Nayar, for the appellants.
A. K. Sen and D. N. Mukherjee, for the respo.rident.
66
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] 2 S.C.R.
The Judgment of cl1e Court wa3 delivered by
Grover, J.
This is an appeal by special leave from a
judgment of the Assam & Nagaland High Court by
which
a
petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by the respondent
challenging the termination of his service was allowed.
The respondent was serving the railways
as
an
Assistant
Traffic Superintendent prior to December 2, 1957. His services
were terminated by serving on him one montli.'s notice under
Rule J 48 contained in the Indian Railways Establishment CC>de.
The respondent filed an appeal to the General Manager but he
was informed by means of a letter dated Febrnary 3, 1959 :ha;
no appeal was competent. In June I 959 he was
offered re-
employment as a Statistical Inspector in the scale of Rs. 200 to
R>. 300 plus the usual allowances on terms and conditions appli-
cable to temporary employees.
It appear~ that the respondent
accepted the offer and was appointed to the post. He was finally
informed by means of a letter dated December 31, 1959 that
his representaticn had been consider~d by the Railway Board
relating to the termination of his services as Assistant Traffic
Superintendent but the same had been rejected. On December 5,
1963 this Court decided by majority in Moti Ram Deka etc.
v. General Manager, N.E.F. Railways etc.(') that Rules 148 (3)
and 149 (3) of the Indian Railway Establishment
Code were
invalid.
The respondent made a representation
thereafter
in
1964 to the General Manager to reconsider the
case
of
the
termination of his s.rvices in the light of the law declared by
this Court. The GenerExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.