Dismissed¶40

General Manager, North East Frontier Railway v. Sachindra Nath Sen

Supreme Court22 Aug 19691969 INSC 200 · [1970] 2 S.C.R. 651969 INSC 200

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Reinstatement of railway employee; Rule 148 and Rule 149, Indian Railway Establishment Code; Moti Ram Deka [1964] 5 SCR 683 applied; Article 311(2) violation; six-year cut-off for reinstatement held arbitrary; Railway Board reinstatement policy; Article 226 writ petition allowed by Assam & Nagaland High Court; Article 14 (artificial demarcation, High Court finding); waiver by accepting lower post repelled; Civil Appeal No. 1839; Civil Rule 2 of 1965; decided 22-08-1969; Grover J.; J. C. Shah Acting C.J.; V. Ramaswami J.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; appeal dismissed with costs. ¶40

General Manager, North East Frontier Railway… — Writ and Judicial Review | Supreme Court (1970)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; appeal dismissed with costs.

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the Railway Board's restriction of reinstatement to employees whose services were terminated under Rules 148/149 within six years prior to 5-12-1963 (with representations pending) was legally sustainable, or arbitrary. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

In view of the law laid down by this Court in Moti Ram Deka, the termination of the respondent's services in December 1957 was wholly void and illegal.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The fixing of the six-year period limiting reinstatement to employees terminated under Rule 148 within six years prior to December 5, 1963 was on its face arbitrary, and no valid or reasonable explanation was given for the limit.

¶39

Key takeaways

If the termination of service of an employee in terms of Rule 148 is wholly illegal and void as violative of Article 311(2), his reinstatement should follow as a matter of course.ratio¶39
The appellant's submission that the railway authorities would have faced difficulty and inconvenience in reinstating employees without regard to the elapsed period was devoid of merit and rejected.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitutional law - Arts. 311(2), 226, 14 - Indian Railway Establishment Code, Rules 148/149. The respondent's services as Assistant Traffic Superintendent were terminated with effect from 2-12-1957 by one month's notice under Rule 148; his appeal was held incompetent, his representation was rejected (31-12-1959), and he accepted reemployment as Statistical Inspector. After Moti Ram Deka ([1964] 5 SCR 683) held Rules 148(3)/149(3) invalid as violative of Art. 311(2), the Railway Board confined reinstatement to employees terminated under Rules 148/149 within six years prior to 5-12-1963 with representations pending; the respondent missed the cut-off by 3 days. Held (Grover, J.): the six-year limit was on its face arbitrary with no valid or reasonable explanation; where termination is wholly void for breach of Art. 311(2), reinstatement should follow as a matter of course; the plea of administrative difficulty was devoid of merit. Appeal from the Assam & Nagaland High Court (Civil Rule 2 of 1965, decided 16-2-1967) dismissed with costs.

¶1

¶2

GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY

SACHINDRA NATH SEN

August 22, 1969

(J. C. SHAH, ACTING C.J., V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]

¶8

Indian Railway Establishment Code, Rules 14B and 149 Held invalid by Supreme Court as violative of Art. 311 (2) _of ;lie Constitution of India -Railway Board deciding that only employees wh.1se services were tern1i· nated under said Rules within a period of six ,vears before Supreme Court (; judg1nen1 would be reinstated-Validity of lilnit of rix )'ears.

¶9

The services of the respondent as an Assistant Traffic Superintendent on the North East Frontier Railway \vere terminated after one month's notice under Rule 148 of the Indian Raih'av Estab.¹ \shment Code with effect from De<:<mber 2, 1957. An appeal to the Deneral Manager was held not to be competent. On being offered a lower post the respondent accepted it. By Jetter dated December 31, 1959 he was informed that his D regresentation to the Railway Board had been rejected. On December 5, 1963 this Court in Moti Ram Deka's case held that Rules 148(3) and 149(3) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code we;e invalid being violative of Art. 111(2) of the Constitution. The respondent made a representation in 1964 to the General Manager for reconsideration of his case in the light of the said judgment. The representation was turned down on the ground that the Railway Board had decided to n1instate only those E employees whose services had been terminated in terms of Rule~ 148/ 149 within a period of six years prior to the. date of the Supn'me Court's judg~ ment. The respondent filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitutior which was allowed by the High Court. The General Man.1ger appealed.

¶10

HELD : Tue fixing of a period of six years was on the face of it arl:?i~ trary and there was no valid or reasonable explanation as tli why this limit was fixed by the railway authorities. If the termination of service of an F employee in terms of Rule 148 was wholly illegal and v.Jid because of violation of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution, his reinstatement should have followed as a matter of course. The contention that the raihvay authorities would have found a lot of difficulty and inconvenience in reinstating em~ ployees without taking into consideration the period which had elapsed was devoid of merit and could not be accepted. [67 F-G]

¶11

Moti Ram Deka etc. v. General Manager, N.E.F. Railwais etc. [1964] G 5 S.C.R. 683, applied.

¶12

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION; Civil App~al No. 1839·of 19M. ·

¶13

¶14

Appeal by spe,cial lea\e from the judgment and dtcree dated February 16, 1967 of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Civil Rule 2 of 1965.

¶15

¶16

V. A. Seyid Muham,Md and S. P. Nayar, for the appellants.

¶17

A. K. Sen and D. N. Mukherjee, for the respo.rident.

¶18

(1970] 2 S.C.R.

¶19

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶20

¶21

¶22

The Judgment of cl1e Court wa3 delivered by

¶23

Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Assam & Nagaland High Court by which a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by the respondent challenging the termination of his service was allowed.

¶24

The respondent was serving the railways as an Assistant Traffic Superintendent prior to December 2, 1957. His services were terminated by serving on him one montli.'s notice under Rule J 48 contained in the Indian Railways Establishment CC>de. The respondent filed an appeal to the General Manager but he was informed by means of a letter dated Febrnary 3, 1959 :ha; no appeal was competent. In June I 959 he was offered reemployment as a Statistical Inspector in the scale of Rs. 200 to R>. 300 plus the usual allowances on terms and conditions applicable to temporary employees. It appear~ that the respondent accepted the offer and was appointed to the post. He was finally informed by means of a letter dated December 31, 1959 that his representaticn had been consider~d by the Railway Board relating to the termination of his services as Assistant Traffic Superintendent but the same had been rejected. On December 5, 1963 this Court decided by majority in Moti Ram Deka etc. v. General Manager, N.E.F. Railways etc.(') that Rules 148 (3) and 149 (3) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code were invalid. The respondent made a representation thereafter in 1964 to the General Manager to reconsider the case of the termination of his s.rvices in the light of the law declared by this Court. The General Manager sent a reply dated June 3, 1964 saying that the question of the respondent's reinstatement could not be considered as it was not covered 'by limits of Jaw, i.e. it does not fall within a period of six years from the date of your termination of service". This was followed by another letter dated December 7, 1964 in which it was stated :

¶25

"It has now been clarified by the Railway Board that the claim for reinstatement of the Ex : Employees whose services were terminated in terms of Rule 148 / 149 within a period of six years prior to 5-12-63 (the date of the Supreme Court's judgment), and whose representation is still pending is only to be considered. Since your services were terminated on 2-12-57 which is more than six years counting backwards from 5-12-63, it is regretted that your request for reinstatement cannot be acceded to".

¶26

Thereupon the respondent filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court. As stated before the petition

(I) [19641 5 S.C.R. 683.

¶35

G. M., N. E. F. RLY, v. s. N, SEN (Grover, J.)

¶36

¶37

A was allowed principally on the ground that the railway authorities were not legally justified in making a distinction. between officers whose services had been terminated within sbl years prior to the judgment of this Court in Moti Ram Deka's(') case and the cases of those whose services had been terminated earlier. As pointed out in the judgment of the High Court that respondent's services

¶38

B were terminated on December 2, 1957, he was behind time by 3 days only. It was found that such an artilicial demarcation between the two kinds of cases was hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution. The other point that the respondent had accepted reemployment and must be deemed to have waived his rights to reinstatement to his original office was also repelled.

¶39

c In Moti Ram Deka's(') case this Court held that the termination of the services of a permanent servant authorised by Rules 148(3) arid 149(3) of the Railway Establishment Code was inconsistent with the provisions of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. The termination of the service~ of a permanent servant authorised by those Rules was no more and no less than removal from service D and Art. 311 (2) was at once attracted. In view of the Jaw laid down by this Court the termination of the services of the respondent in December 1957 was wholly void and illegal. The railway authorities recognised, as indeed they were bound to do, the implications and effect of the judgment of this Court but created a wholly illegal and artificial distinction by saying that only those employees whose services were terminated in terms of E Rule 148 within a period of six years prior to December 5, 1963 and whose representations were pending were to be considered for reinstatement, whereas the employees like_ the respondent whose services had been terminated on a date which was more than six years counting backward from December 5, 1963 would not be reinstated. The fixing of the period of six years was on F the face of it arbitrary arid no valid or reasonable explanation !las been given as to why this limit was fixed. If the termination of service of an employee in terms of Rule 148 was wholly illegal and void and was violative of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution his, reinstatement should have followed as a. matter of course. 'I'l!e submissio1,1,of the learned counsel for the appellant that the G railway authonues would have found Jot of difficulty and inconvenience in reinstating employees without taking into consideration the period which had elapsed is devoid of any merit and cannot be accepted.

¶40

The appeal fails and it is dismissed with costs.

¶41

H G.C.

¶42

¶43

Appeal dismissed.

General Manager, North East Frontier Railway v. Sachindra Nath Sen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

General Manager, North East Frontier Railway v. Sachindra Nath Sen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Calcutta versus Shaila Behari Lal Singha

Nazeeria Motor Service etc. etc. versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni Alias Moopil Nair versus Kavalappara Kottaratil Parvathi Nethiar Alias Vijayam Nethiars Children Gouri Nethiar and Others

Surat Singh versus Kishori Lal & Ors.

Jullundur Rubber Goods Manufacturers' Association versus Union of India & Anr.

Badri Pershad versus Smt. Kanso Devi