Lahiri, J. - (1.) The respondent N.C. Chatterjee, who is now officiating as the Assistant Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Sealda, started officiating in the Lower Gazetted Service of the Engineering department on 12-11-1938 and was transferred to the Personnel Branch as Assistant Personnel Officer on 7-12-1946. According to the Indian Railway Establishment Code -- Vol. 1, P. 3, Rule 104 the respondent may be described as belonging to "Railway Services -- Class II Gazetted" in the following scale of pay: Rs. 275-25-500 (Efficiency Bar)-30-650 (Efficiency Bar)-50-800.
(2.) The increments are earned according to a time-scale; but there are two efficiency bars, one after he has reached the salary of Rs. 500/- and the other after be has reached the salary of Rs. 650/-per month. On 2-6-1951 the respondent reached the first efficiency bar. On 20-6-1951 the Deputy General Manager (Personnel) who held the test for crossing the Efficiency Bar did not find the respondent fit and recommended the stoppage of his increment at the efficiency bar to the General Manager. On receipt of the recommendation of the Deputy General Manager (Personnel) the General Manager by his letter No. SP, 161 dated 29-6-1951 communicated the report of the Deputy General Manager (Personnel) to the respondent and asked him to show cause against the imposition of penalty by way of stoppage of increment at the efficiency bar. Cause was shown by the respondent by his letter dated 5-7-1951 and after considering the explanation submitted by the respondent, the General Manager by his letter No. SP. 161 dated 23-7-1951 decided to withhold the increment of" the respondent's salary at the first efficiency bar for a period of six months from 2-6-1951. Thereafter the respondent went 011 sick leave for a period of two months from 1-8-1951 and the next date of crossing the efficiency bar fell due on 2-2-1952. The respondent was then directed to appear at the efficiency bar test to be held on 5-3-1952. In accordance with the said direction the respondent appeared at the test which was held jointly by Mr. Carmody, the outgoing Deputy General Manager (Personnel), Eastern Railway and Mr. P.C. Vaish, his successor in office. By an office order No. OPE. 1084/52 dated 25-3-1952 passed by the Deputy General Manager (Personnel) the respondent was' declared fit to cross the first efficiency bar and was granted increment of pay from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 530/- with effect from 6-3-1952, A copy of this order was forwarded to the Chief Accounts officer as well as to the respondent for information, On 30-5-1952, however, the respondent received a copy of a letter No. SP. 161 doted 28/29-5-1952 written by the General Manager, Eastern Railway to the Divisional Superintendent, Sealda in which the General Manager stated that he could ' not accept the results of the efficiency bar test declaring the respondent fit and directed the respondent to appear at another test to be held by a Committee of the Head of departments presided over by the General Manager. It was further directed that the committee would consist of the Chief Engineer and the Chief Electrical Engineer. Against this order of the General Manager the respondent made some unsuccessful representations to the Railway Board and thereafter moved this . Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained a Rule upon the General Manager, Deputy General Manager (Personnel) and Divisional Superintendent, Sealda, Eastern Railway to show cause why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not issue upon them, directing them to forbear from taking any action upon the letter of the General Manager No. SP. 161 dated 28/29-5-1952 and of the Railway Board dated 23-6-1952.
(3.) There can be no question that in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the internal administration of a Railway and the only question that can be investigated is whether the authorities concerned have acted in excess of the powers conferred on them by statutes or Statutory Rules. Before Sinha J., the respondent based his claim upon the ground that though the General Manager was the authority who could withhold the increment of the respondent at the efficiency bar, he bad in fact delegated this authority to the Deputy General Manager (Personnel) and since the latter officer had, in exercise of this delegated authority, declared the respondent fit and granted him an increment from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 530/- the General Manager had no jurisdiction to reopen the question and direct the respondent to appear at another efficiency bar test. Sinha J., has given effect to this contention and issued an order directing the General Manager to retrain from withholding the increment of the respondent and from holding any further test in respect of his first efficiency bar. Against this order the General Manager, Eastern Railway has brought this appeal.;