HARIBANS MISRA AND OTHERS versus RAILWAY BOARD AND OTHERS

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 78 · Decided: 11-01-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
HARIBANS MISRA AND OTHERS 
v. 
RAILWAY BOARD AND OTHERS 
JANUARY 11, 1989 
IMURARI MOHON DUTT AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.) 
Civil Services: Lien-Holding of-Person appointed on ad hoc 
basis cannot have lien on the post-Person can have lien on post and not 
lien on place. 
~; 
c 
D 
Railway Establishment Code: Rules 157and 324 to 328-D.L. W. 
Varanasi-Railway employees appointed on permanent basis-Later 
promoted-Insertion of Rule 328(2) by Correction Slip No. 70-Effect 
of rule-Wiping out promotions granted to employees and also length of 
service of nine years-Held rule 328(2) arbitrary and void-Not to be 
given effect to. 
The appellants in the appeal were appointed in or about January, 
1959 as Trade Apprentices in Locomotive Component Works. In 
August, 1961 there was a merger of Locomotive Component Works 
with Diesel Locomotive Works, as a result of which all the members of 
the staff of LCW were taken over by DLW. The appellants were 
E 
appointed skilled artisans on July 19, 1962 after successfully completing 
the training period of 3'h years. The channel for promotion to higher 
posts was: 
(1) Skilled Artisan, (2) Highly Skilled Grade-II, (3) Highly Skilled 
Grade-I, (4) Chargeman-C, (S) Chargeman-B, (6) Chargeman-A, (7) 
F 
Assistant Foreman and (8) Foreman. 
In September, 1963, the appellants were promoted to the post of 
Instructor-C which was equivalent to the post of Charegman-C. The 
posts were inter-changeable. The appellants were further promoted on 
September 22, 1964 to the post of Chargeman-B. Some of the respon-
• 
G 
dents in the appeal who were direct Recruits also competed with the 
appellants for the post of Chargeman-B, but could not qualify in the 
written test. 
11-
On August 11, 1966, the General Manager, DLW prepared and 
issued a seniority list of Chargeman-B. This list was challenged by 
H certain direct recruits in a writ petition to the High Court. A Single 
78 
'
HARIBANS MISRA v. RAILWAY BOARD 
79 
...4 .. 
Judge quashed the seniority list and also the guidelines/rules framed by 
A 
the General Manager, DLW on the basis of which the seniority list was 
prepared, on the ground that the General Manager, DLW was not the 
General manager of the Railway, and as such he had no authority to 
frame the rules or the guidelines for the purpose of preparation of the 
seniority list. It was further held that the guidelines/rules were violative 
_,..\" 
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 
B 
Several appeals were preferred, one of them being by the Railway 
Administration. The Division Bench while upholding the finding of the 
--~ 
Single Judge that the General Manager DLW was not competent to 
frame the rules/guidelines, disagreed with the finding that the rules/ 
guidelines were violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 
c 
-f 
Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the Railway Board issued an 
Advance Correction Slip No. 70 inserting Rules 324 to 328 in the Rail-
way Establishment Manual after rule 323 in Chapter III. Rule 328(2) 
provided that: 'selections and promotions made in the Diesel Locomo-
tive Works from August 1, 1961 upto the date of the notification of the D 
rules shall not be invalid'. The amended rules came into effect from 
March 11, 1973. 
' 
J-, 
The resultant situation was that Rule 328(2) vitally affected the 
appellants by making invalid all the promotions given to them during 
the period Angus! 1, 1961 to March 11, 1973 and the appellants were 
E 
reverted back as Skilled Artisans. 
' 
The General Manager, DL W a Circular dated 7 /Sth December, 
1973 directed appellants to appear at the Trade test and further in-
/. 
formed that failure to do so would result in being passed over for 
fixation of seniority in the Highly Skilled Grade-II. The representation 
F 
against this Circular was turned down. 
Aggrieved by the introduction of Rule 328(2) and also the issuance 
of Circular by the General Manager DLW the appellants filed a writ 
petition in the High Cour. The High Court overruled the contention 
that the new rules inserted in the Railway Establishment Manual by 
G 
;1\ 
the Advance Correction Slip No. 70, were invalid, and held that the 
rules were quite valid and were not arbitrary or discriminatory. As 
regards promotion of the appellants, the High Court took the view that 
they were only interim and provisional an.d not regular and as such no 
right was conferred on appellants to hold the posts to which they were 
promoted. The High Court accordin

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