Case: S. Krishnamurthy Vs. General Manager, Southern Railway

An unfortunate administrative error, which was discovered long after, has led to an avoidable writ petition, writ appeal and an appeal to this Court necessarily involving a considerable period of litigation and considerable expense. We have heard both sides at great length and have followed the points of the petitioner which appealed to the learned single Judge of the High Court and of the respondent which appealed to the Division Bench which upturned the judgment of the learned single Judge. We tentatively indicated what stuck us as the correct and just conclusion on both sides feel that the conclusion we have reached and which will be presently set down is manifestly fair in the circumstances of the case.2. The appellant joined the Southern Railway as a clerk way back in October 1948 and was confirmed as train clerk on April 1, 1949. He worked his way up and became a wagon chaser in anpost. Therefore, he was entitled to become Assistant Yard Master but, for reasons which we need not go into, he continued as wagon chaser. The promotion post for Assistant Yard Master is that of traffic inspector. Unfortunately, the appellant was not considered for that post although other similarly situated like him were absorbed as traffic inspectors. The railway administration discovered the injustice and set right the error of not treating the appellant as an Assistant Yard Master by its order dated November 10, 1965; but by this time others had been absorbed as traffic inspectors and the appellant was not. His representation proving unsuccessful, he moved the High Court under Articles 226 for the relief of being treated as traffic inspector with effect from January 1, 1959 when those others similarly situated were so absorbed. The conflicting fortunes of the case have already been indicated and all that we need say is that in the light of the order of the railway administration dated November 10, 1965, there has been an injustice inflicted on the appellant.

Reasoning: 5. Yet another point that arises is as to what is to happen regarding his arrears of salary from December 20, 1967 and forperiod. We make it clear that while seniority is being notionally extended to him from January 1, 1959, the appellant will not be entitled to any salary qua traffic inspector prior to December 20, 1967. However, he will be entitled to salary on the terms indicated above from December 20, 1967 as traffic inspector; that is to say, he will be eligible to draw the difference between what he has drawn and what he will be entitled to on the basis we have earlier indicated in this judgment.