- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bhadei Rai v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant joined the Indian Railways in 1979 as a Khalasi on a daily-rate basis and was accorded temporary status on 1-1-1982. On 31-3-1985 he received an ad hoc promotion to the Group ‘C’ post of Rigger, a position in which he served continuously for roughly twenty years (1985-1999). On 5-10-1999, after completion of the project work that justified the ad hoc promotion, the Railways repatriated him to his substantive Group ‘D’ post with a lower pay scale.
Challenging this reversion, the appellant:
- Filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which was dismissed on 17-11-1999.
- Filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Delhi High Court, which also dismissed his claim.
- Sought special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, resulting in the present decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether long, continuous service (about twenty years) in an ad hoc Group ‘C’ post confers a right to regularisation or protection against reversion to the substantive Group ‘D’ post.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to pay protection and consideration for regular promotion in Group ‘C’ despite the ad hoc nature of his original promotion.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Continuous service for two decades in the higher Group ‘C’ post should preclude reversion to Group ‘D’ with a lower pay scale.
- Regularisation in the Group ‘C’ post is justified and should have been granted by the CAT.
Union of India's (Railways) Arguments
- The promotion was purely ad hoc and created no vested right to regularisation.
- Regularising the appellant in Group ‘C’ would adversely affect the legitimate promotional prospects of other eligible employees.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India, (2005) 11 SCC 301 |
|
The Court treated the appellant’s situation as analogous and adopted the same twin principles: (i) reversion cannot be invalidated, but (ii) pay must be protected and prior service considered during future promotions. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the appellant’s promotion was expressly ad hoc, depriving him of an enforceable right to remain in the Group ‘C’ post. Relying directly on the ratio in Inder Pal Yadav, the Court concluded that:
- Reversion to the substantive Group ‘D’ post is legally unobjectionable.
- However, two decades of higher-level service, successful completion of a 1995 screening test (results declared in 1997), and demonstrated competence justify equitable relief.
- Accordingly, the appellant merits:
- Protection of the last drawn pay he enjoyed in Group ‘C’;
- Consideration for promotion to Group ‘C’ in his regular turn, with due weight to his past service and qualifications.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is partly allowed. The orders of the CAT and the Delhi High Court are modified as follows:
- The appellant’s last drawn Group ‘C’ pay shall be protected despite his reversion to Group ‘D’.
- He shall be considered for promotion to Group ‘C’ along with his peers, with specific regard to his prior screening test qualification and twenty years’ experience as a Rigger.
Implications are limited to the parties: the appellant gains financial protection and a fair chance at future promotion; no new legal precedent is created beyond reaffirming the principles already articulated in Inder Pal Yadav. Each party bears its own costs.
D.M Dharmadhikari, J.— Leave, prayed for, is granted.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India representing the Railways are heard at length.
3. The appellant started his service in the Railways on daily rate as Khalasi in the year 1979. He was given a temporary status on that post with effect from 1-1-1982. According to the Railways, he was granted promotion on 31-3-1985 purely on ad hoc basis to the post of Rigger in the pay scale of Rs 121-1500. For a long period between 1985 and 1999 the appellant continued to work on the promoted post of Rigger carrying higher scale of pay. The post of Rigger is Group ‘C’ post but the appellant was regularised and absorbed in lower Group ‘D’ post by order passed on 5-10-1999. Although, he had completed more than twenty years of service on higher Group ‘C’ post of Rigger, he was repatriated to his parent division in Group ‘D’ post carrying lower scale of pay.
4. Aggrieved by his repatriation to a lower post he filed a petition in the Central Administrative Tribunal and claimed relief of his regularisation in Group ‘C’ post in which he had been made to continuously work for a period of twenty years.
5. The Central Administrative Tribunal by order dated 17-11-1999 rejected the appellant's claim of his absorption and continuance on the higher Group ‘C’ post. It was held by the Tribunal that the appellant's substantive post was of Gangman in Group ‘D’. His ad hoc promotion to the higher post of Rigger was on his posting in the project. The work in the project having been completed, he had to be repatriated to his substantive post. The claim of the appellant was turned down by the Tribunal stating that the appellant cannot be regularised in Group ‘C’ post as that would affect the legitimate chances of others in Group ‘C’ post. It was observed that the appellant had to await his turn for regular promotion from Group ‘D’ post to Group ‘C’ post.
6. The appellant challenged the order of the Tribunal by writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. The High Court by the impugned common order passed in cases of several other railway employees upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition. The appellant, therefore, has approached this Court in appeal by seeking special leave.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the appellant having been made to work on the higher post in Group ‘C’ for a long period of twenty years with higher scale of pay should not be reverted to Group ‘D’ post with lower scale of pay. It is submitted that the appellant's claim for regularisation in Group ‘D’ post was justified and relief prayed for by him ought to have been granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Railways supported the order of the Tribunal contending inter alia that the appellant worked on a higher post of Rigger under an order of ad hoc promotion which created no legal right in his favour to claim regular promotion or regularisation, to the detriment of claims of other employees in the Group ‘C’ post.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we find that claim of the appellant deserves to be partly allowed on the basis of judgments of this Court in a somewhat similar situation in the case of Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India (2005) 11 SCC 301. In the case of Inder Pal Yadav (2005) 11 SCC 301 this Court held that since promotion from Group ‘C’ to Group ‘D’ was ad hoc, the order of reversion to the post in the parent department cannot be questioned. This Court, however, held that although the order of reversion from promoted post in project to substantive post in regular line is unquestionable, the appellant, in any case, is entitled to pay protection. The relevant part of the order of this Court in Inder Pal Yadav case (2005) 11 SCC 301 reads thus:
“6. However, while the petitioners cannot be granted the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition, namely, that they should not be reverted to a lower post or that they should be treated as having been promoted by reason of their promotion in the projects, nevertheless, we wish to protect the petitioners against some of the anomalies which may arise, if the petitioners are directed to join their parent cadre or other project, in future. It cannot be lost sight of that the petitioners have passed trade tests to achieve the promotional level in a particular project. Therefore, if the petitioners are posted back to the same project they shall be entitled to the same pay as their contemporaries unless the posts held by such contemporary employees at the time of such reposting of the petitioners is based on selection.
7. Additionally, while it is open to the Railway Administration to utilise the services of the petitioners in the open line, they must, for the purpose of determining efficiency and fitment take into account the trade tests which may have been passed by the petitioners as well as the length of service rendered by the petitioners in the several projects subsequent to their regular appointment.”
10. In the case of the present appellant, the aforesaid directions squarely apply. The appellant had to undergo a screening test in the year 1995 and in the result declared in 1997, the appellant had qualified. A long period of twenty years has been spent by the appellant on a higher post of Rigger in Group ‘C’ post. In such circumstances, he is legitimately entitled to the relief of pay protection and consideration of his case for regular appointment to Group ‘C’ post on the basis of his long service in Group ‘C’ post.
11. Relying, therefore, on the decision of this Court in the case of Inder Pal Yadav (2005) 11 SCC 301 the present appeal is partly allowed by modifying the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal and of the High Court. It is directed that the appellant's pay which he was last drawing on the date of his repatriation from Group ‘C’ post to Group ‘D’ post, shall be protected. It is further directed that the appellant shall be considered for promotion to Group ‘C’ post in his turn with others, with due regard to the fact of his having passed the screening test and his work and performance for long twenty years on the post of Rigger in Group ‘C’.
12. The appeal, thus, succeeds to the extent indicated above. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.
Alert