VIRENDER KUMAR, GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI versus AVINASH CHANDRA CHADHA AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 769 · Decided: 25-04-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA, P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

VIRENDER KUMAR, GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN 
A 
I 
RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI 
v. 
~--
AVINASH CHANDRA CHADHA AND ORS. 
APRIL 25, 1990 
B 
[LAUT MOHAN SHARMA AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.] 
.,...-
Service Law-Railways-Class III Service-Traffic Apprentices 
... 
-Recruitment of-25% by direct recruitment and 75% by promotion to 
departmental officials called Rankers-Merger of sources of recruitment 
·r 
and constitution of a single unified cadre of "Relieving Transportation c 
~' 
Assistants"-Seniority and promotion-Initial claim before High Court 
confined to seniority and promotion in Class-III service-Railways 
working out promotions upto Class-II service-Concerned employees. 
...,.r· 
gaining substantially-Held employees not entitled to further promo-
lions in Class-I as a matter of right. 
D 
Service Law-Deemed promotion-Payment of emoluments on 
higher posts with retrospective effect-Held entitlement to higher grades_ 
on account of deemed promotions on the basis of quota and rota rule is 
inequitable and irrational-Principle of "no work no pay"-Held 
/ 
applicable. 
E 
The respondent-employees. are Traffic Apprentices belonging to 
Class-III Railway service which has four grades carrying different pay-
scales. Above Class-III posts, are Class-II and Class-I posts. The entire 
Class-II service was filled by promotion by selection from Class-III 
L 
service. The Class-III service in the Traffic and Transportation Depart-
ment consisted not only of Traffic Apprentices but also of other 
F 
categories. However, the promotion to Class-II post was not made 
)_ 
exclusively from Class-III service of the said Department, but the incum-
bents of Class-III service in the Commercial Department were also 
entitled to be considered for promotion. Consequently, a combined 
seniority list of Class-III service both of the Traffic and Transportation 
Department as well as the Commercial Department, was maintained. 
G 
The promotions to further posts, viz., to Class-I posts were thereatler 
made from the incumbents of Class-II posts. In Class-I service, 60 per 
>-----
cent posts were filled by direct recruitment and 40 per cent by promo-
tion from Class-II service. 
The appointment to the posts of Traffic Apprentices was by direct 
H 
769 
A 
B 
770 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990) 2 S.C.R. 
recruitment to the extent of 25% and this quota was to be carried 
forward in the case of shortfaU in any particular year. The remaining 
7 5% of the vacancies were earmarked to other departmental officials 
for promotion who were caUed rankers. Subsequently, both the sources 
of recruitment were merged and a new single unified cadre of "Reliev-
ing Transportation Assistants" was constituted. 
The respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court chaUeng. 
ing the seniority list in the afOresaid newly constituted cadre on the 
ground that their seniority in the newly constituted cadre was not cor-
rectly rixed according to quota rota rule of 25:75 either because the 
quota rule was not observed properly or the unfilled vacancies in the 
25% quota reserved for them were not carried forward since 1954 
onwards. 
.,. . 
c 
A single judge of the High Court rejected the petition on the 
ground oflaches. 
D 
On appeal, the Division Bench set aside the decision of the single 
judge on the question of laches and directed the Railway Administra-
tion to draw a revised seniority list. 
Against the decision of the Division Bench, the Railways preferred 
a Special Leave Petition in this Court which was dismissed. Accordingly, 
E 
the Railways prepared a fresh seniority list in 1976. Since the said 
seniority list look care of the grievances only of the employees who were 
parties to the petition, some of the Traffic Apprentices filed an applica-
tion before the Central Administrative Tribunal for a direction to quash 
the seniority list of 1976 and to prepare a fresh seniority list. 1n the 
meanwhile pursuant to the directions of the High Court the Railways 
F 
prepared a fresh seniority list in 1983 superseding the seniority list of 
1976. The Tribunal disposed of the application by its order dated June 
25, 1986 by directing that the seniority list of 1983 shall be acted upon, 
and that the confirmations and promotions be made on the basis of that 
list. Consequently the Railways worked out the promotions upto and 
inclnsive of Class II posts. 
G 
Subsequently the respondent filed a contempt petition before the 
Tribunal contending that full effect had not been given to

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