RAMLAL versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 27 · Decided: 21-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.... 
> 
RAMLAL 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
AUGUST 21, 1996 
[K. .RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Indian Railway Establishment Manual: Rule35ll(c). 
Se1vice Law-Railways-Petitioner appointed on ad hoc basis as a 
casual worker-Te1111ination-Termination order challenged successful-
ly-Reinstatement-Claim for status of regular employee with effect from the 
date of initial appointment-Tribwial holding that unless the petitioner had 
undergone the medical test and was properly selected in order to be appointed 
on regular basis, he has no 1ight to claim service benefits of a regular 
employe~Appeal-Held there was 110 illegality in the order passed by 
T!ibunal-Petitioner is entitled to pennanent status after reinstatement. 
. 
Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Shanna v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 
(1962) SC 1334, held inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
A 
B 
c 
D 
No. 15896 of 1996. 
E ·· 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.8.93 of Central Appellate 
Tribunal, Calcutta in O.A. No. 747 of 1987. 
K. B. Sinha, Anil K. Jha, · Rajeev K. Sinha and T. Ray, for the 
Petitioner. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This special leave petition is filed against the order dated August 4, 
1983 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench made in O.A. 
F 
No. 747/1987. The admitted position is that the petitioner was appointed G 
on ad hoc basis as a casual worker (khalasi) on August 1, 1962. He was 
terminated by an oral order on September 18, 1964. He challenged his 
termination by filing title suit No. 34/68/117 of 1967 in the Court of Learned 
Munsif, Asansol which was decreed; the order of termination was declared 
as illegal, void and inoperative and it came to be confirmed in appeal. H 
27 
28 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A Thereafter the petitioner was reinstated and the consequential benefits 
were given. He was, admittedly, reinstated on July 14, 1971. He is claiming 
the status of regular employee w.e.f. the initial date of his appointment on 
par with other candidates. It is not in dispute that as per Rule 3511 {C) of 
Indian Railway Establishment Manual, unless the candidate is sent before 
B 
c 
the Medical Board and selected by the regular selected committee, he has 
no right tq the post. Obviously since the report of the medical examination 
was not found on record, he was asked to appear for medical examination 
in 1987 which medical test he had undergone. Subsequently, he came to be 
appointed on regular basis. But regular status was given to him w.e.f. 
September 14, 1971. 
He filed the OA contending that he must be deemed to have been 
regularly appointed from the initial date of his appointment and that, 
therefore, he is entitled to all the consequential benefits. In the impugned 
· order, the Tribunal was right in observing that unless the petitioner had 
D undergone the medical test and was properly selected in order to be 
appointed on regular basis, he has no right to claim service benefits of a 
regular employee. The appointing authority has put him back to the regular 
status w.e.f. the date of his reinstatement in September 1971. It is sought 
to be contended that once he was appointed on regular basis, in view of 
E 
the decision of the civil Court it must be deemed that he should have been 
continued in service from the beginning. We find no force in the conten-
tion. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court 
in Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Shanna v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR {1962) 
F 
'sc 1334 at 1337, paragraph 10. The said ratio has no application to the 
facts in this case. In that case the incumbent was a regular employee and 
the dismissal from service was declared invalid. He was deemed to have 
been continued in service and, therefore, he was entitled to the consequen-
tial benefits from his initial appointment. 
At the time of termination, the petitioner was ad hoc employee with 
• 
G temporary status and he was put back into the status on his reinstatement. 
r' 
When he was medically examined he was appointed from the date of his 
reinstatement. In fact, they have done justice to him. Had it been a case of 
regular appointment, he could not be put back into the status from the date 
of his initial appointment according to the rules. He is entitled to the 
H permanent status after reinstatement. That status was given to him. Ac-
RAM LAL v. U.0.1. 
29 
cordingly, we do not find any illegality in the 

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