Decided on September 17,1976

UNION OF INDIA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-



- (1.)THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order of Anil Kumar Sen, J. dated March 20, 1972 discharging the Rule obtained by the petitioners appellants. The relevant facts are as follows: As a result of studies carried on by the Department of Administrative Reforms, as also studies carried out periodically by the Staff Inspection Unit of the ministry of Finance for the purpose of streamlining and securing economy in the administration, a reduction of workload was involved in the organizations leading in turn, to a reduction in number of posts and thus in surplus in personnel. By an order of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated February 25, 1966 the Government of India adopted a high priority scheme for placement of such surplus personnel. Under the scheme all surplus personnel was transferred to a Special Central Cell of the said Ministry and the cell was charged with the responsibility of arranging the placement of such staff against fresh needs through training programs in fresh skills. Such staff as would not opt for voluntary requirement on attractive terms or to undergo training would be retrenched. It was, inter alia, provided that the personnel in the central pool should be placed in other Government organizations including public sector undertakings as early as possible and within six months. There would be a total ban on direct recruitments to all Government Organizations. It was further provided that junior most temporary person should be surrendered against reduced cadre strength, following if necessary by junior most quasi permanent and then permanent personnel. The schema further provided that attempts should be made to match the pay scale of the individual with the pay scale of the recipient port as far as possible, but if the pay scale of the recipient post was lower, the individual should be allowed the facility of carrying his previous pay scale along with him even if he was only officiating in it and decision of the central cell would be binding in this regard.
(2.)THE petitioners appellants at the material time were Upper Division clerks (officiating) in Seamens Employment Office under the Ministry of transport and Aviation now Ministry of Transport and Shipping, Government of India, in 'marine House' Hastings, calcutta. The Upper Division Clerks were declared surplus as per recommendation of the Inspection Units of the Ministry of Finance. By letter dated June, 23, 1966 the petitioners were directed to state specifically if, in the event of their not being absorbed elsewhere as Upper Division Clerk, they would be willing to revert as permanent Lower Division Clerk to which posts they held lien. The petitioners in their reply stated that they were willing to revert as L. D. Clerks in event of failure by the appropriate authority to absorb them as U. D. clerk but they sought protection of the pay drawn by them as U. D. Clerk in their substantive post and also that their respective seniority should be ensured.
(3.)BY office order dated September 13, 1966 the petitioners were reverted to their substantive post as l. D. Clerk with effect from the said date. The petitioners made several representations thereafter stating that contrary to the provisions of the scheme, they were neither given pay protection nor their names were considered for various appointments in the office of the Accountant General, West Bengal or in public sector undertaking the shipping Corporation of India Ltd. . while two junior most Upper Division clerks were absorbed.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.