C. RANGASWAMY AND OTHERS Vs. SR. DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, OLAVAKKOT AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, seven in number, are casual labourers employed in the Railways. The first respondent is the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Olavakkot, and the second respondent is the Executive Engineer (Construction), Southern Railway, Podanur In this writ petition the petitioners challenge Exts P-2, P-3, R-2 and R-3 orders. Ext. P-2 is the copy of letter No. P(RT) 564/P/Vol. VI dated 5-4-1971 of the Chief Personnel Officer; Ext. P-3 is the copy of letter No. P(RT)564/P/Vol. VI dated 22-6-1971 of the General Manager's letter; Ext. R-2 is the copy of letter No. E (NG) 11-76 CL/67 dated 23-7-1976 of the Railway Board; and Ext. R-3 is the copy of letter No. E(NG) 1174 CL/99 dated 25-8-1975 of the Railway Board

(2.) The provisions for recruitment to Class IV Railway Servants are made in Chapter I of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Clause (xiii) (c) of Sub-Section IV of Chapter I therefore reads as follows:-

(3.) The bone of contention in this writ petition really confines to one point: whether, for the purpose of impanelment, it is the seniority based on the first appointment as casual labour or the seniority based on the aggregate length of service that has to be reckoned. The submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that the provision contained in Chapter I sub-section IV, clause (xiii) (c) of the Railway Establishment Manual makes it clear that a register has to be prepared on the basis of the first appointment and for the purpose of impanelment also the selection has to be made on that basis. The counsel for the Railways, however, contended that by the expression "total length of service" used in clause (xiii) (c) of sub-section IV of Chapter I, the Railway Board really meant only the aggregate service depending on the number of days actually worked by the casual labour irrespective of the date on which he was first appointed. The counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to rule 137 of the Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I, which reads as follows:-