S.P. INDU versus THE GENERAL MANAGER, METRO RAILWAY AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 546 · Decided: 12-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
A 
S.P. INDU 
v. 
THE GENERAL MANAGER, METRO RAIL WAY AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 12, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
'"T 
Service.Law-Promotion-Post of Assistant Law Officer-
Appellant and respondent posted in Metro Railway from open line on 
c different dates, with different designations-Respondent promoted as 
Asstt-Law Officer being senior most amongst regular Chief Law 
Assistants on their parent Railway-Challenge to, by appellant-Held: 
Not correct since appellant having not passed departmental 
examination never held the post of Chief Law Assistant on substantive 
D basis in the open line--He was merely on deputation-Respondent 
having passed departmental examination was in the cadre of Chief 
t--
Law Assistant in the open line-Calcutta Metro Railway (Operation 
and Maintenance) Temporary Provisions Act, 1985-/ndian Railway 
Establishment Manual-Paragraph 203.5. 
E 
Appellant joined South Eastern Railways as a Clerk in 1964 and 
was posted to Metro Railway Project on 17.10.1970. Third respondent 
joined as a Junior Stenographer in the South Eastern Railways on 
4.2.1978 and was posted to Metro Railways on 12.5.1978. He was 
F promoted as Law Assistant on 28.3.1979 in the scale of pay ofRs.550-
.. 
750/-on an ad hoc basis which was regularized w.e.f. 28.3.1979. He was 
I 
again promoted as Law Assistant on 10.12.1985. On 28.3.1990, 
respondent was promoted as Chief Law Assistant. Respondent passed 
the departmental examination and became Law Assistant on a regular 
G basis in 1991. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Law Officer on 
::.' 
} 
30.1.1994. Appellant did not pass the departmental examination. 
i 
Appellant, while retaining his lien in the Southern Eastern Railway 
).. 
..... 
Administration, was appointed as Chief Law Assistant in the Metro 
Railways in the scale of pay ofRs.700-900/- on an ad hoc basis w.e.f. 
H 
546 
-"'i'
) 
S.P. INDU v. THE GENERAL MANAGER, METRO 
RAILWAY 
547 
23.7.1986. Appellant challenged the promotion of the respondent as A · · 
Assistant Law Officer. The promotion order of the respondent was 
upheld. Appellant then filed Original Application which was allowed. 
However, the Division Bench of High Court set aside the order holding 
that the appellant had never held the post of Chief Law Assistant on a 
Bi 
substantive basis in the open line where he had the lien. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Appellant contended that the High Court failed to take into 
consideration that the appellant having been placed in the pay scale of 
Rs.2000-3200/- by the Metro Railway was eligible to be considered for c 
promotion to the post of Assistant Law Officer since only seniority-cum-
suitability test was to be applied; that the High Court erred in holding 
that the appellant had been holding a post of Head Clerk, since the 
appellant had been holding the post of Chief Law Assistant for four years 
whereas the private respondent had not even completed three years of D 
regular service; and that the appellant was holding the feeder grade to 
the promotion of Assistant Law Officer since 10.12.1985, respondent 
held the post of Chief Law Assistant only from 28.3.1990. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1. At all material times, the appellant had retained the 
lien of the South Eastern Railway Administration. From the records, it 
1 
appears that he was permanently absorbed in the Metro Railway Project 
\ 
as governed by the Calcutta Metro Railway (Operation and 
Maintenance) Temporary Provisions Act, 1985. However, no Rules had F 
been framed at the relevant time and the Office Order issued on 
19.9.1970 was applicable. [Para 12} [555-C, Fl 
1.2. Third respondent, in terms of the said Rules carried with him 
the seniority in the open line when he joined the Metro Railway. He O 
having passed the departmental examination was in the cadre of Chief 
Law Assistant in the open line. However, appellant having not passed 
the said examination held his lien in the post of Head Clerk in the open 
line. [Para 14} [556-B} 
r
~ 
548 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
-1 
A 
1.3. It cannot be said that the said Rule will have no application to · 
the employees of the Metro Railway being not an establishment of the 
- ' 
Indian Railways. Employees from different streams were eligible to 
appear at the competitive examination. Their inter se seniority was, 
therefore, required to be determined in terms of the said Rule. Although 
B Metro Railway was an independent organization,

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