Remanded

Union of India, through Secretary, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways and Ors. v. Mr. Jaideep Digambar Pawar

Bombay HC28 Jul 2014WP/66/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a labour tribunal's order regarding expungement of an adverse performance remark, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's direction for the Railway Board to decide the merits and extended the deadline for the decision.

What did the court decide?

Order of the Railway Board to decide on the merits within six weeks from the date of this judgment.

Union of India, through Secretary, Railway Board… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

7.WPNo.662014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 66 OF 2014

¶4

Union of India through General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai CST & Ors. ... Petitioners vs. Mr.Jaideep Digambar Pawar ... Respondent

¶5

Mr.T.J.Pandian, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms.Priyanka Mehndiratta, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶6

CORAM :NARESH H.PATIL & RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, JJ. DATED :28TH JULY, 2014

¶7

P.C.

¶8

The respondent was appointed as Dy.Chief Safety Officer. On a study leave he left India on 23/09/2010 and returned on 11/03/2011. He had to submit an Annual Performance Appraisal Report (A.P.A.R” in short) by 12/08/2011, which he did not submit. The respondent again left the country on study leave on 21/03/2011 and returned on 03/06/2011. On 18/03/2011, the appraisal form was served on the petitioner. Without filling in the form, the respondent forwarded the same to the competent authority on 28/03/2011. Finding that self appraisal endorsements were not mentioned by the respondent, the competent authority put necessary endorsement and marked the performance of the respondent as “average”. This remark was communicated to the respondent on 02/05/2011.

1/3

Gaikwad RD

7.WPNo.662014

On 15/04/2012, the respondent forwarded the second form which was not accepted as the competent authority had already endorsed accordingly on the form which was submitted to the respondent on the earlier occasion.

¶13

Aggrieved by the remark of “average” performance, the respondent approached the Tribunal. By a judgment and order the Tribunal directed the Railway Board to take a decision as to whether the adverse remark which was communicated to the applicant i.e. respondent herein, should be expunged.

¶14

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would be the Commissioner/General Manager, Railway who would be entitled under the Rules and guidelines to verify and decide as to whether adverse remarks are to be expunged or not. The decision for this purpose need not be forwarded to the Railway Board as directed by the Tribunal. The learned counsel submits that the directions are erroneous and against the guidelines and Rules and therefore interference is warranted.

¶15

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that reports for the successive years in case of the respondent's service were looked into by the Railway Board. Railway Board being highest authority is entitled to look into the grievance of the respondent as directed by the Tribunal.

2/3

Gaikwad RD

7.WPNo.662014

We have perused the record placed before us, impugned order and considered the submissions. In the facts of the case, we do not find any glaring error in the direction issued by the Tribunal. In the facts of the case, we expect the Railway Board to look into the merits of the matter and take appropriate decision strictly in accordance with the record, Rules and guidelines framed for the said purpose as directed by Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Tribunal's order, the Railway Board was to take decision within six weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order passed by the Tribunal. The said period has expired. The learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for extension of the said expired period.

¶20

The Railway Board shall take appropriate decision in accordance with the directions issued by the Tribunal within six weeks from today. We do not express any opinion on the merits of the contentious issues raised in respect of the adverse remarks. The petition is disposed of.

¶21

(RAVINDRA V.GHUGE,J.)

¶22

(NARESH .H.PATIL, J.)

¶23

3/3

¶24

Gaikwad RD

Union of India, through Secretary, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways and Ors. v. Mr. Jaideep Digambar Pawar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India, through Secretary, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways and Ors. v. Mr. Jaideep Digambar Pawar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Dashrath Gude Vs Director of Fisheries, Maharashtra State and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra, through Additional Chief Secretary, Public Health Dept and Ors. Vs Dr. Arvind Krishnaji Jadhav and Ors.

Prakash Dashrath Gude Vs Director of Fisheries, Maharashtra State and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Ors. Vs Shri. Sagar G. Chikshhe

Vasant K. Thakur and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Neeta Amit Khardikar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Dept of School Education and Sports and Ors.