- (1.) The appellant was employed as an Electric Fitter in the Eastern Railway, On August 11 1960, he was promoted to officiate as Electrician. Three month's later, on November 18, 1961. he was reverted to his substantive post. The order of reversion did not give reasons, but stated that he would be eligible to be considered for promotion to any higher Post which may be open to him but for such reversion. The appellant filed an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act for a refund of Rs. 300/- which he alleged, had been deducted from his salary without sufficient 6ause. Bv implication. the case of the appellant was that the order of reversion was illegal, because it was tantamount to imposing upon him the punishment of reduction in rank in violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The application having been dismissed the appellant filed an appeal, which was also dismissed bv the learned District Judge, Varanasi. on February 25, 1965. Aggrieved. the appellant filed a writ petition which failed. Hence the present appeal.
(2.) We are not satisfied that the order of reversion amounted to imposing the punishment of reduction in rank. On its face the order was innocuous. It did not expressly cast any stigma upon the appellant. From the averments in the counter-affidavit filed bv the authorities, it appears that after evaluation of the appellant's work on the post of electrician for about three months it was found that his work was unsatisfactory. This meant that the appellant was not found suitable for the post to which he was promoted in an officiating capacity. Reversion based upon an evaluation of the performance of an officiating hand cannot, in our opinion be characterised as a measure of punishment. An appointment in an officiating capacity carries with it an implication that if the performance of the employee is not found satisfactory, he will be liable to be reverted to his substantive Post. This being the necessary condition upon which promotion in an officiating capacity is made, reversion on a finding that he was not suitable for the Dost is on the fulfilment of the condition on which the promotion was based. In the Divisional Personnel Officer v. Raghvendrachar, 1966 AIR(SC) 1529. it was held that when a person officiating in a post is reverted for unsatisfactory work it cannot be said that his reversion would amount to reduction in rank. The Government has a right to consider the suitability of the person holding the position to which he has been promoted to officiate and it was entitled to make enquiries for that purpose about his suitability, Since the order of reversion was valid, the payment of salary of the post of Electric Fitter was iustified. It cannot be said that there was any deduction from wages without sufficient cause. In this view of the matter, it is unnecessary to consider whether the validity of the reversion order could, in law. be challenged in an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act.
(3.) The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.;