1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL WRIT No. 5845 of 2009 OM PRAKASH V/S CENTRAL ADMIN. TRIB. JODHPUR & ORS Mr. NK KHANDELWAL, for the appellant / petitioner Date of Order : 20.7.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI GOVIND MATHUR,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order of the Tribunal, so also the earlier order of the Tribunal dt. 9.5.2007. The whole thrust of the argument is that the petitioner was appointed on 21.11.1979 while the private respondents were appointed on 6.3.1980, therefore, considered from the stand point of date of appointment the petitioner is senior. It is then submitted that the petitioner, and private respondents were all appointed in the canteen, and such employees were earlier not treated to be in Railway employment but then by virtue of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court they were all threated at par with the Railway employees i.e. they were to be treated railway employee since 22.10.1980, and 2 therefore, the petitioner and the private respondents came at par, and that being the position the petitioner should have rank senior. The learned Tribunal has found that private respondents were appointed as salesman in the higher pay scale of 220-335 while the petitioner was appointed as Tray Boy in the lower scale of 160-275. In this regard the submission made is that according to the circulars of the Railway Board and the Rules specially Rule 102 and 179 no direct appointment could be made in the Group-C post in which the post of salesman fell in the pay scale of 220-335, and the appointment was required to be made in the Group-D only, in which the petitioner was appointed being 160-275. Thus, simply because the private respondents were illegally appointed in higher pay scale, they cannot be made to rank senior to the petitioner, and the petitioner is entitled to be treated at par with with them, and then on the basis of date of appointment is required to be made to rank senior. We have considered submissions, and find that in the nutshell the submission comes to is, that the appointment of the private respondents in the higher pay scale was contrary to rules, or in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Pinaki Chatterjee Vs. Union of India reported (2009) 5 SCC-193 relied upon by the 3 learned counsel for the petitioner was illegal. But then the question is as to whether on that basis the petitioner can be conceded any right to be treated at par with such persons, who are allegedly illegally appointed once upon a time. One aspect of the matter is, that in the year 1980 the things were clear to the petitioner, that he has been made to serve in the lower pay scale, but then that was not challenged by him for more than two decades. That apart second more important aspect is, that even if it were to be assumed, that the private respondents were illegally appointed, on that basis the petitioner cannot be allowed to contend, that similar illegality should be repeated, so as to treat the petitioner also to have been appointed in the pay scale of 220-335, since the initial appointment. We thus do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/