SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. B. YASHODABAI
LAWS(SC)-2014-12-16
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on
December 08,2014
South Central Railway Employees Co -Op. Credit Society Employees Union
Appellant
VERSUS
B. Yashodabai
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SUGANTHI SURESH KUMAR V. JAGDEESHAN [REFERRED TO]GOVERNMENT OF GOA VS. A H JAFFAR SONS [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
THE DIRECTOR, FRANCIS J. PALLAN & OTHERS VS. HAJI ABDULLA HAJI ADAM SAIT CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT & OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2018-1-429] [REFERRED TO]SNEH KOHLI VS. UNIVERSAL ENGLISH TRUST & ANR [LAWS(BOM)-2016-10-48] [REFERRED TO]
RANGANATHA D. VS. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BMTF POLICE [LAWS(KAR)-2016-4-157] [REFERRED TO]
PUESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-10-100] [REFERRED TO]
TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2019-11-145] [REFERRED TO]
NAMITA MAHENDRA THANAI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-1-194] [REFERRED TO]
P.A. INAMDAR & ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2018-10-169] [REFERRED TO]
SAI HEMAJA AEROBRICKS PVT. LIMITED VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(TLNG)-2024-1-44] [REFERRED TO]
SANAY ADHIKARI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2017-6-62] [REFERRED TO]
ARESKO RESTAURANT PVT LTD VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2015-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
AFTAB SINGH VS. EMAAR MGF LAND LTD. [LAWS(NCD)-2017-7-20] [REFERRED TO]
MEHTAB LAIQ AHMED SHAIKH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR VS. BINJOY KURIAN [LAWS(KER)-2017-3-93] [REFERRED TO]
SARIFUL ISLAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2019-6-73] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHANSH KUMAR BHARTI VS. VICE CHANCELLOR, BHUPENDRA NARAYAN MANDAL UNIVERSITY [LAWS(PAT)-2021-12-40] [REFERRED TO]
RIT FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-5-366] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRASAD SHARMA VS. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(DLH)-2021-3-131] [REFERRED TO]
M3M INDIA PVT LTD & ANRINFRABUILD (P) LTD VS. DINESH SHARMA & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2019-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2019-4-154] [REFERRED TO]
BRAJESH KUMAR JAIN & OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2016-8-43] [REFERRED]
LYKA LABS LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDER BHARTI VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-453] [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI VASWANI VS. RESHMA VASWANI AND ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2015-6-30] [REFERRED TO]
NANIBIBI ALAUDDIN MALEK VS. VIRANCHILAL BAPALAL THAKORE DECEASED BY HIS HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES [LAWS(GJH)-2017-6-190] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP PATIL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-2-292] [REFERRED TO]
HORLICKS LTD & ANR VS. HEINZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2018-12-144] [REFERRED TO]
MANPREET KAUR VS. HARJYOT SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2020-3-137] [REFERRED TO]
THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR, FRANCIS J. PALLAN & OTHERS VS. HAJI ABDULLA HAJI ADAM SAIT CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT & OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2018-1-656] [REFERRED TO]
GURMEET SINGH & ORS VS. STATE OF J&K & ORS [LAWS(J&K)-2017-10-112] [REFERRED TO]
THE LAND COMMISSIONER CHEPAUK VS. VGP HOUSING PVT. LTD. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-8-145] [REFERRED TO]
DILEEP KUMAR SHUKLA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2020-1-50] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No.1683 of 1998 on 14th August, 2002, this appeal has been preferred by the South Central Railway Employees Co-Op. Credit Society Employees' Union.
(2.)It is necessary to know the circumstances which gave rise to the present litigation, which has put the employees of the appellant-union to undue hardship and long-drawn litigation.
(3.)The South Central Railway Employees Co-Op. Credit Society (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'), had framed rules governing service conditions of its employees and the said rules had been approved by the Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
This Court, in Civil Appeal No.4343 of 1988, had decided that there was no reservation policy for the employees of the Society in the matter of promotion to higher cadre. The said decision had been taken by this Court for the reason that there was a dispute whether the policy of reservation was to be followed only at the stage of recruitment of the employees or it was also to be followed in the matter of giving promotion to the higher cadre. After considering all relevant factors and relevant rules and regulations, this Court had come to a specific conclusion that there was no provision with regard to giving benefit of reservation of any kind to the employees of the society in the matter of their promotion. The said issue had arisen initially for the reason that even in the matter of promotion, the policy with regard to reservation had been followed by the society and some promotions were given on the basis of reservation policy and the said policy was challenged by way of a writ petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and ultimately in the said proceedings, this Court had finally come to a conclusion in Civil Appeal No.4343 of 1998 that in the matter of promotion, policy of reservation was not to be followed and as a consequence thereof, the persons who had been wrongly promoted on the basis of reservation policy had to be reverted.
(2.)It is necessary to know the circumstances which gave rise to the present litigation, which has put the employees of the appellant-union to undue hardship and long-drawn litigation.
(3.)The South Central Railway Employees Co-Op. Credit Society (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'), had framed rules governing service conditions of its employees and the said rules had been approved by the Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
This Court, in Civil Appeal No.4343 of 1988, had decided that there was no reservation policy for the employees of the Society in the matter of promotion to higher cadre. The said decision had been taken by this Court for the reason that there was a dispute whether the policy of reservation was to be followed only at the stage of recruitment of the employees or it was also to be followed in the matter of giving promotion to the higher cadre. After considering all relevant factors and relevant rules and regulations, this Court had come to a specific conclusion that there was no provision with regard to giving benefit of reservation of any kind to the employees of the society in the matter of their promotion. The said issue had arisen initially for the reason that even in the matter of promotion, the policy with regard to reservation had been followed by the society and some promotions were given on the basis of reservation policy and the said policy was challenged by way of a writ petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and ultimately in the said proceedings, this Court had finally come to a conclusion in Civil Appeal No.4343 of 1998 that in the matter of promotion, policy of reservation was not to be followed and as a consequence thereof, the persons who had been wrongly promoted on the basis of reservation policy had to be reverted.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.