Source: http://www.rishabhdara.com/sc/view.php?case=4001
Timestamp: 2019-11-12 08:12:52
Document Index: 634304569

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 311', 'Art. 311', 'Art. 226', 'Art. 311', 'Art, 226', 'Art. 226', 'Art.\n14', 'Art. 311', 'Art.\n311', 'Art. 311']

GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH EAST FRONTIERRAILWAY versus SACHINDRA NATH SEN
GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH EAST FRONTIERRAILWAY V. SACHINDRA NATH SEN [1969] RD-SC 199 (22 August 1969)
Indian	Railway Establishment Code, Rules 148 and 149	held invalid by Supreme Court as violative of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution of India-Railway	Board	deciding that	only employees whose services were terminated under	said Rules within	a period of six years before Supreme Court judgment would be reinstated-Validity of limit of six years.
The, services	of the respondent as an Assistant Traffic Superintendent	on the	North East Frontier Railway	were terminated after one month's notice under Rule 148 of	the Indian Railway Establishment Code with effect from December 2, 1957. An appeal to the General Manager was held not to be competent. On being offered a lower post the respondent accepted it.	By letter dated December 31, 1959 he	was informed that his representation 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 were invalid being violative of Art. 311(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 instate	only those employees whose services had been terminated in terms of Rules 148/149 within a period of six years prior to the date of the	Supreme Court's judgment. The respondent filed a petition under	Art. 226 of the Constitution which	was allowed by the High Court. The General Manager appealed.
HELD: The	fixing of a period of six years was on	the face of it arbitrary and there was no valid or reasonable explanation as to why this limit was fixed by	the railway authorities. If the termination of service of an employee in terms of Rule 148 was wholly illegal and void because of violation of	Art. 311(2) of the	Constitution,	his reinstatement should have followed as a matter	of course.
The contention that the railway authorities would have found a lot	of difficulty	and inconvenience in	reinstating employees without taking into consideration the period which had elapsed was devoid of merit and could not be accepted.
[67 F--G] Moti Ram Deka etc. v. General Manager, N.E.F. Railway etc. [1964] 5 S.C.R. 683, applied.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1839 of 1967.
Appeal by	special leave from the judgment	and decree dated February	16, 1967 of the Assam	and Nagaland	High Court in Civil Rule 2 of 1965.
V.A. Seyid Muhammad and S.P. Nayar, for the 'appellants.
A.K. Sen and D.N. Mukherjee, for the respondent.
66 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 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.
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 month's notice	under Rule 148 contained in the Indian Railways Establishment Code. The respondent filed an appeal to	the General	Manager but he was informed by means of a letter dated February	3, 1959 that no appeal was competent.	In June 1959 he was offered reemployment as a	Statistical Inspector in the scale of Rs. 200 to Rs. 300 plus the usual allowances on terms and conditions applicable to temporary employees. It	appears 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 representation had been considered 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.(1) 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 services 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 respondents reinstatement could not be considered as it	was not covered 'by limits of law, i.e. it does not fail 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:
"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".
Thereupon the respondent filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the. High Court. As stated before	the petition (1) [1964] 5 S.C.R. 683.
67 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 six years prior to the judgment of this.
Court in Moti Ram Deka's(1) case and the cases of those whose services had been terminated earlier. As pointed	out in the judgment of the High Court that respondents services were terminated on December 2, 1957, he was behind time by 3 days only. It was	found that such an	artificial 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.
In	Moti Ram Deka's(1) case this Court held that	the termination of the services. of a	permanent servant authorised by	Rules 148(3) and 149(3) of	the Railway Establishment Code was inconsistent with the provisions of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. The termination of	the services of a permanent servant authorised by	those Rules was no more and no less than removal from service and	Art.
311(2) was at once attracted. In view of the law 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 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 the face of it arbitrary and no valid or	reasonable explanation has 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. The submission of	the learned	counsel for	the appellant	that the railway authorities would have found lot 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.
(1) [1964] 5 S.C.R. 683.