Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Writ No. 1068 of 1966

Attorney(S)

Mr. Agnihotri
Advocate.

Judges

R.S Narula, J.

Acts

rule 150-A of the Railway Establishment Code,

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Judgment by R.S. Narula, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment disposes of Civil Writ No. 1068 of 1966 (M.L. Chopra v. Union of India) and Civil Writ No. 1114 of 1966 (Wazir Chand v. Union of India).

Relevant factual matrix (as stated in the opinion):

Posts of Luggage Guards in Northern Railway were abolished with effect from 1 January 1949.
The petitioner (referred to as Madan Lal / Madan Lal Chopra) was working as a Guard around that time; there was dispute whether he was a “Luggage Guard” specifically on 1 January 1949.
He was declared medically unfit on 6 February 1950 (defective vision) and on 15 March 1950 was absorbed as a Brakesman in a lower pay scale.
On 1 September 1950 the President of India issued an order with two directions: (i) Luggage Guards working as such on 1 January 1949 should be fitted in the scale of Guards (C) personally; and (ii) until all qualified and medically fit men among such Guards were absorbed into Guards grade (C), no post of Guards grade (C) should be filled by promotion or recruitment from other categories.
The Railway Board circulated the President's order on 12 September 1950.
Four persons (including Madan Lal) were identified as working as Guards grade (C) on the erstwhile East Punjab Railway and were declared medically unfit after 1 January 1949. Three of them received the protection envisaged by the President's order on the basis of certificates; Madan Lal was initially refused the benefit on the basis of a divisional statement that he was not a Luggage Guard on 1 January 1949.
Madan Lal's initial writ (Civil Writ 192 of 1963) was dismissed by a single Judge (Dua, J.) on 19 August 1963. His Letters Patent Appeal No. 331 of 1963 was decided by a Division Bench (Dutt and Harbans Singh, JJ.) on 7 April 1964 which found documentary support for Madan Lal's case but declined to resolve the disputed question of fact (whether he was a Luggage Guard on 1 January 1949) because the Division Bench considered such a disputed question of fact inappropriate for resolution in writ jurisdiction; the Bench urged the railway authorities to re-examine and redress the matter administratively.
Following examination at divisional level, in September–October 1964 the Divisional Personnel Officer and the General Manager took steps that resulted in Madan Lal being paid on the higher scale pursuant to the President’s sanction (subject to verification by accounts).
Later, the Divisional Accounts Officer (March 1965) took the view that the President's sanction did not apply to staff declared medically unfit after 1 January 1949 and recommended recovery. An order dated 4 April 1966 (signed in the name of the General Manager (Personnel) by an Assistant Personnel Officer) declared that the Railway Board letter of 1 September 1950 had no application to staff declared medically unfit after 1 January 1949 and directed recovery (naming Wazir Chand specifically).
Madan Lal served notice on the Union of India (23 April 1965) and filed the present writ (filed 25 May 1966). The writ was admitted and a conditional stay of deduction was ordered. Wazir Chand filed a separate writ (Civil Writ 1114 of 1966) which was directed to be heard together with Madan Lal’s petition.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the court should entertain relief in a writ petition when the key dispute involves a question of disputed fact (specifically whether the petitioner was a Luggage Guard on 1 January 1949), given prior judicial treatment of the same factual dispute.
Whether, once the Railway authorities had given the petitioners the benefit/protection under the President’s order (and the petitioners had received higher pay), the authorities could retrospectively withdraw that benefit without first affording the petitioners an opportunity to be heard (i.e., whether such withdrawal without a show-cause opportunity violates principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution).
Whether the Railway’s reliance on service rules (including rule 150-A of the Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I) and on the provisional nature of the pay fixation justified retrospective recovery.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments (as summarized in the opinion)

Counsel for the petitioners conceded that the court should not decide the disputed factual question (whether the petitioners were Luggage Guards on 1 January 1949) and accepted that the Division Bench’s earlier observations at least bound them on that procedural point.
Main contention pressed: having been given the protection or benefit under the President’s order and having enjoyed higher pay, the petitioners could not be deprived of that benefit with retrospective effect without being given an opportunity to show cause against the proposed prejudicial action (procedural fairness / natural justice).
Reliance was placed on the Privy Council decision R.T. Rangachari v. Secretary of State (A.I.R. 1937 Privy Council 27) and on Gursewak Singh Harnam Singh v. The State (A.I.R. 1954 Pepsu 129) for the proposition that successors who implement an earlier competent decision should not arbitrarily reopen it after it has been acted upon.

Respondents' Arguments (as summarized in the opinion)

Preliminary objection: the writ involved necessity of deciding a disputed question of fact (whether the petitioner was a Luggage Guard on 1 January 1949), which the respondents argued is not suitable for adjudication in writ jurisdiction.
Res judicata / prior dismissal: it was argued that a similar petition of Madan Lal had been dismissed previously and that the present petition was therefore not maintainable.
Rule-based defence: the impugned action was defended as being in accordance with service rules, specifically rule 150-A of the Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I.
Factual denial: it was averred that Madan Lal had been reported as not working as a Luggage Guard on 1 January 1949, so his case was not similar to those who had been given protection.
Provisional fixation / recovery: it was averred that the higher pay fixed earlier was provisional and excess could be recovered if on final scrutiny entitlement was not established.
Alternative remedies and the availability of regular suit were also pleaded by the Railway authorities as a bar to the writs.
Respondents’ counsel also contended that the petitioners had sufficient opportunity via prior representations and communications to make their case to the authorities.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R.T. Rangachari v. Secretary of State, A.I.R. 1937 Privy Council 27	Principle that successors in office who honestly and competently adopted a prior decision that has been acted upon and is in effective operation should not reopen the matter and arrive at a totally different decision.	The court noted counsel relied on this authority to argue against reopening of a decision after it has been acted upon. The judge observed the principle but indicated that whether the Railway authorities could reopen their prior action depended on whether a statutory rule authorised such reopening; the point was left to the administrative authorities if they insisted on proceeding.
Gursewak Singh Harnam Singh v. The State, A.I.R. 1954 Pepsu 129	Followed the same view as Rangachari on the limited circumstances in which an authority may reopen a prior acted-on decision.	The court recorded that the same view had been followed in this case; it treated the authority as relevant to the question whether previous administrative action, once acted upon, could be reopened by successors. The court did not finally decide the legal availability of reopening because it left that to be raised before the Railway authorities.
Division Bench decision in Madan Lal’s Letters Patent Appeal No. 331 of 1963 (Dutt & Harbans Singh, JJ., 7 April 1964)	Principle (applied by that Bench) that a disputed question of fact (whether the petitioner was actually a Luggage Guard on 1 Jan 1949) was not appropriately resolved in writ jurisdiction; administrative redress was preferable.	The earlier Division Bench's findings and approach constrained the court’s treatment of the factual dispute in the present proceedings (counsel conceded he was bound by that decision). The present court accepted the factual dispute could not be decided in writ proceedings and relied on the Division Bench’s direction that the railway authorities should re-examine the matter administratively.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's reasoning proceeded in a sequence of legal and factual observations constrained by prior decisions and fundamental principles of fairness:

Jurisdictional restraint on disputed facts: The court accepted, and the petitioners’ counsel conceded, that the Court should not decide the disputed factual question whether the petitioners had been Luggage Guards on 1 January 1949. This position was supported by the earlier Division Bench decision in Madan Lal’s LPA, which had declined to resolve that factual dispute in writ jurisdiction and had urged administrative re-examination.
Central legal issue addressed: Having accepted that the disputed factual question was not for judicial determination in the writ, the court addressed the procedural fairness of the respondents’ retrospective withdrawal of benefits once those benefits had been afforded and acted upon.
Natural justice / opportunity to be heard: The court emphasized that once a certain protection or benefit had been afforded to the petitioners (i.e., the higher pay under the President’s sanction), the petitioners were entitled to be heard before being deprived of that benefit retrospectively. The judge characterized this entitlement as necessary to conform to the principles of natural justice and as part of the rule of law guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Absence of show-cause communication: The court examined the material and found that the respondents had failed to demonstrate that any communication was addressed to either petitioner giving notice that the authorities were adopting a new stand to deprive them of the benefit. The respondents did not show any show-cause notice or equivalent communication prior to initiating recovery.
Precedential authorities: The court considered the Privy Council decision R.T. Rangachari and Gursewak Singh (Pepsu) which support the proposition that an acted-upon administrative decision should not lightly be reopened by successors. The court observed that whether the Railway authorities could reopen their own previous decision depends on whether there exists a statutory rule authorising such reopening; that question was to be resolved by the administrative authorities if they continued to press the matter.
Alternative arguments left open: The court noted arguments advanced by the Railway (such as the employer’s right to recover overpayment made by mistake and the provisional character of the pay fixation) but found it unnecessary to pronounce on them in view of its decision on the procedural fairness point.
Relief: Because of the procedural deficiency (lack of an opportunity to be heard before retrospective deprivation), the court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned recovery order dated 4 April 1966.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

The writ petitions are allowed; the impugned order dated 4 April 1966 is set aside and quashed.

Immediate consequences and implications (as stated in the opinion):

The recovery order of 4 April 1966 (directing recovery of amounts on the stated ground that the Railway Board letter dated 1-9-1950 had no application to cases declared medically unfit after 1-1-1949) is quashed by this Court.
The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
The Court explicitly refrained from deciding the underlying disputed factual question (whether the petitioners were Luggage Guards on 1 January 1949) and also refrained from finally pronouncing on whether a statutory rule (if any) authorized the Railway authorities to reopen their earlier action or whether the employer could recover an overpayment made in error; the Court left those issues to be raised and determined by the appropriate Railway authorities.
No novel constitutional principle was established by the judgment beyond application of established natural justice principles and the Court’s view that retrospective deprivation of a conferred benefit requires an opportunity to be heard; the judgment did not purport to resolve the factual entitlement to the President’s sanction.

Note: This summary reproduces and organizes only the information expressly contained in the provided opinion. No facts or legal conclusions beyond the text have been added.

Show full summary ...

M.L Chopra v. Union Of India .

R.S Narula, J.:— This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ No. 1068 of (M.L Chopra… v. Union Of India….) and Civil Writ No. 1114 of 1966 (Wazir Chand v. Union of India).

2. Posts of Luggage Guards in the Northern Railway were abolished on and with effect from the 1st of January, 1949. The petitioner was working as a Guard on that day, but the parties are not entirely agreed on the issue whether he was working as a “Luggage Guard” on that precise day or not. He was declared medically unfit on February 6, 1950 on account of defective vision. With effect from March 15, 1950, he was absorbed as Brakesman in the lower scale of Rs. 60-0. As a Guard he had been in the time-scale of Pay of Rs. 60-1-0. This reduction in his rank is said to have been by authorised the Railway Page: 589statutory rules. On September 1, 1950, the President of India passed an order (Annexure ‘A’ to Wazir Chand's petition), whereby two directions were given, viz.

(i) That Luggage Guards working as such on January 1, 1949, should be fitted in the scale of Guards (C) as personal to themselves; and

(ii) That until all the qualified and medically fit men amongst such Guards were absorbed against posts of Guards grade (C) no post of Guard grade (C) should be filled either by promotion or by recruitment from other categories of staff.

3. The litter of the Railway Board, dated September 1, 1950 containing the above mentioned older of the President of India, was circulated by the General Manager, Northern Railway on September 12, 1950. On May 8, 1962, the General Manager Northern Railway wrote to the Divisional Superintendent, Ferozepur, that four persons including Madan Lal petitioner were working as Guards grade (C) substantively on the erstwhile East Punjab Railway, and they were all declared medically unfit after the 1st of January, 1949, but when as the other three persons were given the benefit of the protection envisaged in the President's order, dated September 1, 1950, on the basis of certificates furnished by their respective Divisions to the effect that they were working as Luggage Guards on January 1, 1949, Madan Lal petitioner had been refused the said benefit on the statement given in the Divisional Superintendent's letter, dated August 26, 1955, to the effect that be was not working as a Luggage Guard on that day. The communication proceeded to Sate that on the practice then followed, such Guards were required to luggage as well as train work duties as verified by Divisional Superintendent Delhi and that Madan Lal petitioner's case being identical and similar to that of the other three Guards referred to in the letter, the said petitioner deserved the same protection of pay as given to other three persons. The Divisional Superintendent recommended the case. The Senior Personnel Officer (1) did not agree with the contention of the Divisional Superintendent and replied in his letter, dated November 16/19, 1962 (Annexure ‘C’ to Wazir Chand's petition) that he had examined the case in detail, and did not find am reason to revise the action already taken by the office of the General Manager. The Personnel Officer further added that it was ??? on account of the certificate given in favour of Wazir Chard, that he had been given the benefit of the protection and that to such question arose in case of Madan Lal petitioner when he was in fact not working as a Luggage Guidon the crucial date i.e January 1, 1949. Aggrieved by the alleged discrimination in favour of three colleagues who were stated to be similarly situated, petitioner Madan Lal came to this Court in Civil Writ 192 of 1963. His writ petition was dismissed by Dua, J. on August 19, 1963. Madan Lal petition's Letters Patent Appeal No. 331 of 1963 against the judgment of the learned. Single Judge was decided by a Division. Bench consisting of Dult and Page: 590Harbans Singh, JJ., (Annexure ‘D’ to Wazir Chand's petition) on April 7, 1964. The learned Judges observed in the course of the judgment that documents produced in that case showed that all the four persons including Madan Lal Petitioner, had been declared unfit after the 1st of January, 1949, and they were all working as Guards ‘C’ on the crucial date i.e on the 1st of January, 1949, and Journal ‘L’ produced before the Bench as well as the letter of the Station Master (Annexure ‘D’ in the previous case) supported the case of Madan Lal to the effect that he was actually performing the duties of a Luggage Guard during the relevant period both before and after the 1st of January, 1949. The Bench, however, could not persuade itself to decide the question whether Madan Lal petitioner was or was not actually working as Luggage Guard on January 1, 1949, on the decision of which question necessarily depended the answer to the charge of discrimination levelled by the petitioner against the Railway administration. While dismissing the writ petition on that ground, the Bench observed, inter alia, as follows:—

“In view of this, the action of the Railway authorities in discriminating against the appellant does appear to be rather uncalled for and we have no doubt, that the authorities concerned would look into the entire case again and redress the wrong, of petitioner-appellant, who apparently cans ill afford to embark on a civil litigation for establishing rights. However, as already stated, this disputed question of fact cannot be properly resolved by this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction and we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge refusing to exercise these exceptional powers.”

4. In respect for the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the General Manager, Northern Railway fairly and rightly wrote to the Divisional Personnel Officer, Ferozepur on July 23, 1964 (Annexure ‘A’ to Madan Lal's petition) that the case was required to be examined to derail in view of the judgment of this Court, and requiring the Divisional Personnel Officer to do the needful at an early due under initiation of the result to the General Manager. On September 10, 1964 the Divisional Personnel Officer sent demi official reply to the office of the General Manager (Anntxure ‘B’ to Madan Lal's petition), wherein I was stated that after obtaining the views of the Transportation Officer, it had been certified that in view of Station Master, Jullundur's certificate, Madan Lal must have been working as Incharge as well as Luggage Guard and that with only one Guard on the train, he must have been performing both the duties, as to separate luggage link ??? on the route in question. The Personnel Officer concluded the letter with the following remarks:—

“In view of this, the pay of Shri Madan Lal Chopra has been refixed giving him protection and the statement drawing out the revised pay has been prepared and seat to D.A.G for verification. As soon as this verification is dons, Page: 591necessary further action will be taken under advice to you.”

5. It transpires from the above order of the Divisional Personnel Officer, who was admittedly competent to decide the matter, that be did not pass any provisional order, but only left the verification of the figures to the Divisional Accounts Officer, and finally decided the issue of fact on which basis he gave the protection envisaged in the Railway Board's letter to Madan Lal petitioner. On October 19, 1964, the General Manager replied to the Divisional Superintendent (Annexure B/1 to Madan Lal's petition), that in view of the circumstances explained in his demi-official letter it was desired that Madan Lal petitioner may be given a suitable reply and payment as due to him may be expedited under Advice to the General Manager. It is not disputed that in pursuance of the above said orders of the Divisional Personnel Officer and the General Manager, Madan Lal petitioner started getting higher pay according to the benefit bestowed on erstwhile Luggage Guards by the President sanction, dated September 1, 1950. It appears that on March 11/19, 1965, the Divisional Accounts Officer, Ferozepur, wrote to the Divisional Personnel Officer that Madan Lal Chopra as well as the other three persons referred to earlier, had been wrongly given the benefit of the President's sanction as the question of their working as Luggage Guards on January 1, 1949, was not relevant because of their having been declared medically unfit subsequent to that day. A copy of the said communication has been produced by the respondents as Annexure R-B to their written statement. In the meantime, Wazir Chand petitioner retired from service on December 31, 1963, but his dues were withheld in order to deprive him of the benefit of the protection referred to above. In pursuance of the recommendation made by the Divisional Accounts Officer on April 4, 1966, the impugned order (Annexure ‘C’ to Madan Lal's writ petition and Annexure R. 1 to the written statement) was passed in the name of the General Manager (Personnel) by the Assistant Personnel Officer in the following terms:—

“Railway Board letter No. E.R 49.RS/B, dated 1-9-1950, circulated under this office letter No. 561-E/85-39-A dated 12-9-1950, has no application to cases of staff declared medically unfit after 1-1-1949.

Divisional Accounts Officer, Ferozepur, has correctly appreciated the position vide his letter No. 64/6.EIII/Eii, dated 11-3-1965, and this office endorses his views. Recovery has to be made from Shri Wazir Chand”

6. Madan Lal petitioner gave a notice to the Union of India on April 23, 1965 (Annexure ‘D’ to his petition), wherein he attacked the correctness of the order and wherein he claimed arrears off pay as due to him for the period for which be had not been paid. Not having received any reply or redress, the petitioner came to this court on May 25, 1966. At that time he was merely aware of the recovery having been ordered, but did not have with him copy of the impugned Page: 592order, dated April 4, 1966. When the matter came up before the Motion Bench (Harbans Singh and Jindra Lal, JJ.), it was directed on May 26, 1966, that the petitioner should first produce a copy of the order on the basis of which the impugned recovery was being made from him. It was at that stage that copy of the impugned order was produced on July 18, 1966, and the writ petition was admitted by Dua and Pandit, JJ., and stay of deduction of over-payed salary was ordered conditional on furnishing security. Since the impugned order directed recovery from Wazir Chand also, he filed civil writ 1114 of 1966 which has been directed to be heard with Madan Lal's case.

7. Separate written statements have been filed by the Divisional Superintendent, Ferozepur on behalf of the respondents. Preliminary objection has been raised against the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that it involves the necessity of deciding the disputed question of fact regarding the petitioner having been or not having been a Luggage Guard on January 1, 1949. Madan Lal's petition has further been contested on the ground that the matter is not amenable to a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution because a similar petition of Madan Lal had been dismissed previously. The impugned action has otherwise been supported as being in accordance with the service rules as contained in rule 150-A of the Railway Establishment Code, Volume I. On facts it has been averred that it had been reported that Madan Lal Petitioner was not working as Luggage Guard on January 1, 1949, and his case was, therefore, not similar to those whose salary had been protected. It has been added that it would be clear from the statement of revised increments (Annexure R.B to the written statement in reply to Madan Lal's petition) that the fixation of Madan Lal's pay at a higher rate was provisional and the excess was liable to be recovered back from him, if it was found that he was not entitled to the same ‘Bar of alternative remedy by way of a regular suit has also been pleaded by the Railway authorities against the maintainability these petitions.

8. Mr. M.R Agnihotri, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has very fairly and frankly conceded that it is not for this Court to decide whether the petitioner were or were not working as Luggage Guards on the 1st of January, 1949, and that the previous decision of this Court in Madan Lal's case at least binds him to this effect. It is also significant to note that the present impugned orders are not based on that ground. Counsel ahas pressed into service only two points. He has firstly argued that whether rightly or wrongly Madan Lal as well as Wazir Chand had been given the benefit of protection afforded to certain categories of Luggage Guards by the President's order, and once having enjoyed that, benefit, they could not be deprived of the same with retrospective effect without being afforded an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action which is prejudicial to them. Sardar Partap Singh, the learned counsel for the Railway authorities argued that the petitioners had sufficient opportunity by making the various representations to which reference has been made above.

9. I find great force in the contention of Mr. Agnihotri, and I regret I am unable to agree with the argument of Mr. Partap Singh, as the respondents have failed to show any communication having been addressed to either of the petitioners, Page: 593wherein this new stand was sought to be taken against them, to deprive them of the benefit of the protection of the President's sanction. It is not for me to decide in the present cases whether the petitioners were or were not entitled to the said benefit. Suffice to say that once a certain protection or benefit had been afforded to the petitioners, they were certainly entitled to be heard and entitled to be given sufficient and adequate opportunity to show cause against their being deprived of the same benefit particularly with retrospective effect. This is necessary in order to conform to the principles of natural justice, which were enshrined in the guarantee of rule of law contained in Article 14 of the Constitution para Mr. Agnihotri has then referred to the judgment of the Privy Council in (1) R.T Rangachari v. Secretary of State, A.I.R 1937 Privy Council 27, wherein it was held as follows:—

“In a case in which after Government Official, duly competent and duly authoritised in that behalf, have arrived honestly at one decision, their successors in office, after the decision has been acted upon and is in effective operation, cannot purport to enter upon a reconsideration of the matter and to arrive at another and totally different decision”

10. The same view has been followed by the learned Chief Justice of the Pepsu High Court in (2) Gursewak Singh Harnam Singh v. The State, A.I.R 1954 Pepsu 129. The decision on this point would depend upon the fact whether there is or is not a statutory rule authorising the Railway authorities or set aside their own previous order. This is also a question which should properly be raised before the Northern Railway authorities if they insist on proceeding against the petitioners to deprive them of the benefit which they have already enjoyed. If there is no rule authorising the Railway authorities to reopen the matter, the petitioners would probably be entitled to continue to have the benefit of the protection which has already been afforded to them. Sardar Pratap Singh contends that there is a generally recognised principle that in case of some benefit having been bestowed on an employee by error, the employer is entitled to withdraw the fruits of that benefit from the employee. This matter may also be raised, if necessary, before the appropriate authorities. In the view I have taken on the first point, it is wholly unnecessary to pronounce upon this argument. Mr. Partap Singh also states that the petitioners had been informed of the decision in their favour being provisional and they had been given the benefit of the protection in question with full knowledge on their part of the same being permitted to be withdrawn at a later date on the final decision of the matter. No such communication has been shown to have been served on either of the petitioners. It will of course be open to the appropriate Railway authority to determine if the petitioners or any of them had been made to note any such decision before the benefit was given to them or him, and if so, what is its effect.

11. For the foregoing reasons, both these writ petitions succeed and are allowed, and the impugned order, dated April 4, 1966 is set aside and quashed. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, however, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

M.L Chopra v. Union Of India .

Structured Summary of the Judgment by R.S. Narula, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments (as summarized in the opinion)

Respondents' Arguments (as summarized in the opinion)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

M.L Chopra v. Union Of India .

Comments