RADHEY SHIAM BANSAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RADHEY SHIAM BANSAL
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J. -
(1.)This is a straightforward case. On 11-9-1963 Radhey Shiam Bansal, petitioner, entered the service of the Ministry of Education, Government of India, as a peon. In 1967 he became a regular lower division clerk. He was posted in the Manual Section of the Central Hindi Directorate in the Ministry of Education. This section was mainly concerned with the translation of manuals etc. from English into Hindi.
(2.)On 31st December, 1970, the President of India issued anotification transferring this translation work from the Central Hindi Directorate (For short C.H.D.) to the Ministry of Home Affairs. In the Ministry of Home Affairs a separate bureau was constituted on 1-3-1971 called the Central Translation Bureau (For short C.T.B.). By an office order of the same date i.e. 1-3-1971 nearly every member of the staff of C.H.D. was transferred to C.T.B. but the petitioner was not transferred. He was left behind. The names of those who were transferred were set out in the office order dated 1-3-1971. The petitioner's name was not there. Two other men of the Administrative Section of the Ministry of Education-T.R. Gera and Lakhmi Singh,-were also transferred on 1-3-1971 by the office order to C.T.B., though they did not belong to the Manual Section of C.HD. Against this action the petitioner represented. His case was that as the work of translation had been transferred from C.H.D. to C.TB., he should also have been transferred to C.T.B. in the Ministry of Home Affairs His representation, dated 16th March, 1971, was rejected on 6th April, 1971.
(3.)But as luck would have it, T.R. Gera, who had been transferred from the Administrative Section on 1-3-1971, expressed a desire to go back to the Administrative Section. He was an administration man. Perhaps the work of translation was not to his liking. He did not want to continue in the Translation Section of C.T.B. His request was accepted. The petitioner came to know of this. He made a representation again on 2-7-1971. In this representation he said this :
"Kindly refer to my request dated 16-3-1971. I have learnt from reliable sources that Shri Tilak Raj Gera wants to come back to this Directorate from the Central Translation Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs. He has already submitted an application for his reversion to the Directorate. It is requested that I want to be transferred to the Central Translation Bureau in place of Shri Tilak Raj Gera. I hope that my request will be given a due consideration." In September 1971, T.R. Gera came back to the Ministry of Education and the petitioner was transferred to C.T.B. in the Ministry of Home Affairs. On 14-9-1971, the office order said that he had been taken in C.T.B. in the "same capacity and on the same pay and allowances" with effect from 1-9-1971. On 4-1-1972, he became a U.DC. in C.T.B. with effect from 1-1-1972. The C.T.B issued a provision Seniority List on 24-4-1972. In this list the petitioner's seniority was shown as from 2-12-1967 when he became L.D.C. in the C.H D in the Ministry of Education. On 22nd February, 1973, C.H.D. issued its own seniority list where T.R. Gera was given the same seniority which was his due. So for so good.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.