M.C.JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated February 1, 1971 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bikaner, whereby he reversed the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, Bikaner dated August 31, 1968.
(2.) THIS appeal raises a very short question as to whether the plaintiff -appellant's repatriation to the Ferozapur -Delhi Division is justified. The necessary facts relevant for the decision of the appeal may briefly be stated as under : The Railway Service Commission selected the candidates for appointment to the posts of Guard Gr.C, The appellant's name is contained in the list 'B' appended to the Railway Service Commission's letter dated September 8, 1954 (Ex. A/4) addressed to the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi. List 'B' consisted of 73 names for the Delhi and Ferozpur Division, in which the appellant's name appeared at Section No. 69, After selection, the appellant was sent for training to the Training School, Saharanpur. The General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi informed the Superintendent Training School, Northern Railway, Saharanpur by his letter dated 27 -7 -55 (Ex. 1) that on completion of the training the probationary Guards may be allotted temporarily to the division according to their choice in order to keep them near to their home station. It was also informed to the Superintendent that the question of reposting such of the candidates as have been posted to the different divisions as above, nearer to their home stations, will be considered later as and when possible. Copy of this letter was forwarded to the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Bikaner Division. The Superintendent, Railway Training School, Sharanpur issued posting order dated August 6, 1955 (Ex. 14) and it was stated that the probationary Guards including the plaintiff are posted in their Division for undergoing practical line training for a period of 15 days before they are actually employed against the working post. The appellant's name appeared at Section No. 2 and the division allotted was Bikaner by letter dated August 22, 1955. In Bikaner Division, the appellant was temporarily posted at Bikaner. Five probationary Guards were posted temporarily pending further adjustment. The appellant gave option for the Bikaner Division, as is evident from Exhibit -18. On completion of the training, the appellant was allotted Bikaner Division, as is evident from the merit lists December 14, 1955 (Ex. 8). In the order of merit, the appellant's name appeared at Section No. 27 and the Division was shown as Bikaner. The appellant was then confirmed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Bikaner vice order dated January 13, 1958 (Ex. 9). The plaintiff's station is shown as Bikaner and he was confirmed with effect from December 14, 1956. The General Manager, New Delhi vide his order dated January 14, 1959 (Ex. A/5) addressed to the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Allahabad with a copy to the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway Bikaner informed that Shri Govind Prasad Maheshwari has been posted at Bikaner vide the plaintiff -appellant Kantichand. The plaintiff appellant made a representation for mutual transfer with Shri SwaraHsingh, Guard vide Ex. A/3 dated November 10,1960, but his request for mutual transfer was not acceded to. The correspondence produced by the defendants -respondents shows that the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi, continued to ask for relieving the plaintiff -appellant from Bikaner Division, in order to join in the Delhi -Ferozpur Division and it continued till orders dated April 10, 1965 and April 19, 1965 were issued. In the meantime, several representations were also made by the other Guards for effecting repatriation of the plaintiff -appellant and other Guards of other Division. It may also be stated that the seniority and confirmation list of Guard Gr.C Ex. 10) was issued on June 14, 1960 in which, the plaintiff -appellant's name appeared at S. No. 73 and it was also stated therein that the seniority and confirmation list of items No. 1 to 85 were already finalised and relating to the remaining items No. 86 to 146, the appeals and objections were invited within a period of one month. Again on March 5, 1965, further seniority list (Ex. 2) was issued, in which the plaintiff's name appeared at Section No. 43 and it was stated that the seniority of the persons appearing at S.No. 1 to 137 has since been finalised after disposing of the appeals of the staff and appeals and objections were invited in respect of the persons appearing at Section No. 138 to 157. The Divisional Superintendent, Bikaner Division by his letter dated March 16, 1964 (Ex. 11) informed the General Manager, New Delhi that the order for repatriation of the plaintiff appellant was first received in January 1959 and in the meantime, he was confirmed as Guard 'C with effect from December 14, 1956 according to the seniority in the Bikaner Division against the existing vacancy vide order dated January 13, 1958 (Ex. 9). It was also stated by him that the repatriation would really be a hardship to the employee, who is required to lose seniority to the extent of eight years and it was also informed that the authorities of the Bikaner Division as well as the employee were not aware that the plaintiff appellant would eventually be repatriated to other division. By letter dated September 1966 (Ex. 19), the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, New Delhi also informed to the Divisional Superintendent, Bikaner Division that in case, the plaintiff appellant is allotted the Delhi Division, his name shall stand at S, No. 77 in the seniority list of Guard Gr. C. The Divisional Superintendent, Bikaner Division by his letter dated September 9, 1965 (Ex. 22A) informed the General Manager, New Delhi that since, nothing was mentioned in the Head -quarter's letter dated July 27, 1955 that the recruited Guards are subjected to repatriation at a later stage, they were assigned due seniority and confirmed prior to the receipt of the Head -quarter's letter dated August 28, 1961. The plaintiff -appellant based his case on his confirmation and so his lien in Bikaner Division and subsequent appearance of his name in the final seniority lists, and he also based his claim on the ground that the repatriation would be detrimental to his interest as he will loose his seniority and future promotion. The learned Munsif, after trial of the case, decreed the plaintiff's suit and declared that the orders of repatriation are not valid and enforceable against the plaintiff -appellant and it was declared that the plaintiff -appellant is a; hand of the Bikaner Division. The defendants -respondents Were further restrained from effecting the plaintiff's repatriation or minimize his rights, which have accused to the plaintiff as a hand of the Bikaner Division. The Union of India went in appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif and the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bikaner allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Mnnsifand dismissed the plaintiff's suit, hence, this appeal by the plaintiff -appellant.
(3.) I have heard Mr. M. Mridul, learned Counselfor the appellant and Mr. A.K. Mathur, learned Counselfor the respondents.;