RAM UJAREY versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 685 · Decided: 13-11-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAMUJAREY 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
NOVEMBER 13, 1998 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Reversion-Railways-Coal Kha/asi in Loco Department-Transferred 
C to Carriage Wagon Department-Passed Trade tests-Promoted to the posts 
of Semi Skilled Fitter and Skilled Fitter-By an order reverted to the post 
of Khalasi-Challenged by filing a suit before Trial Court-Suit decreed-
On appeal by Railways, Tribunal directed to file claim petition before the 
appropriate Bench of the Tribunal-Claims petition filed which was dismissed 
D by Tribunal holding that appellant not entitled to count the service rendered 
in Loco Department for seniority in Wagon Department-On appeal, Held, 
appellant was rightly promoted to the post of semi skilled and skilled fitter 
after he passed trade tests-Benefit of previous service rendered cannot be 
withdrawn without giving opportunity of hearing to appellant-Reversion 
Order wholly illegal and cannot be sustained-Appellant to be put back on 
E duty on the post of Fitter with consequential benefits-Central Administrative 
Tribunals Act, 1985-Section 19. 
Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985-Sections 19, 21 : 
Limitation-Reversion Order dt. 18. 4.1980-Challenged by filing a 
F suit in 1980-Within Limitation period-Tribunal directing to file the claim 
petition before proper court-Refiling of petition-Delay of one and half 
months-Tribunal held barred by limitation-On appeal, Held, Tribunal errred 
in dismissing the claim on the ground of limitation. 
The appellant was appointed as Khalasi under the Loco Foreman, Ambala ' 
4, 
G Cantt. and was posted as Coal/Fuel Khalasi. He was transferred to Carriage 
Wagon Department and was posted as Khalasi at Khanalampura Goods Yard. 
He was again transferred to Ambala Cantt. where he passed the trade test 
for the posts of Semi-Skilled Fitter and Skilled Fitter and was promoted. By 
an Order dated 18.4.1990, the appellant was reverted to the post Khalasi. 
H Appellant challenged the reversion order by filing a regular suit before the 
684 
RAM UJAREY v. U.0.1. 
685 
trial court which was decreed. An Appeal filed by the Department was A 
allowed by the Tribunal directing the appellant to file the plaint before the 
appropriate Bench of the Tribunal. Appellant then filed a claim petition 
-
before the Tribunal. The said petition was dismissed by the Tribunal holding 
that appellant was not entitled to count the service rendered by him in the 
Loco Department as Coal Khalasi towards his seniority in the Carriage and B 
Wagon Department as he has failed to prove that he was sent on transfer to 
Carriage Wagon Department and not as fresh appointee. The Tribunal also 
dismissed the petition on the ground oflimitation. Hence the present appeal 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The Revision Order passed by the respondents was wholly c 
illegal and cannot be sustained. The appellant shall be put back to duty on 
the post of Fitter with all consequential benefits. (692-A; 694-B) 
1.2. On perusal ofthe Original Record it is found that the appellant 
was initially appointed as Khalasi in 1964 and was confirmed with effect D 
from 11.4.1965. Thus it was not a case of mistake on the part of 
Administration, but they had rightly given the benefit of previous service to 
the appellant who was as a consequence thereof, rightly called for trade tests 
for the posts of Semi-Skilled Fitter and Skilled Fitter and having passed 
those tests was rightly promoted on those posts. (691-D-E) 
E 
1.3. The appellant having earned two promotions after passing the 
trade tests, could not have been legally reverted two steps below and brought 
back to the post of Khalasi without being informed that the period ofservice 
rendered by him could not be counted towards his seniority and, therefore, 
the promotion orders would be cancelled. The appellant had been allowed F 
benefit of service rendered by him as Coal Khalasi in the Loco Department 
as that period was counted towards his seniority and it was on that basis that 
he was called for the trade tests which he had passed and was, thereafter, 
pr<>moted to the posts of Semi-Skilled Fitter and Skilled Fitter. If the benefit 
> 
ofservice rendered by him from 1964 to 1972 was intended to be withdrawn 
and promotion orders were to be cancelled as having been passed on account G 
of mistake, the respondents ought to have first given an opportunity of 
hearing to the appellant. (692-C-D; BJ 
1.4. The

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